Pam O'Dell, who organized the Tea Party rally held on Tax Day in Gardiner, wrote a thoughtful letter to the New Paltz Times (4/29/10 edition) in which she objected to the paper's use of the term "teabaggers" in its coverage of the rally when referring to participants. Reporter Mike Townsend used the term or a variant of it in the headline and twice in the story he wrote about the protest.
Townsend, in a response that is twice the length of O'Dell's letter, explains that people associated with the Tea Party movement have used "teabagger" to refer to themselves and so therefore he is justified in using a term that is slang for one person lowering his testicles into another person's mouth.
Townsend's sort of rationalization is on the order of referring to folks at an NAACP rally with the "n-word" because there were some young rappers on the scene talking about themselves like that. The analogy is not precise, but it's close enough to explain why a local newspaper doesn't let a reporter do what Townsend did. I blame the editor more than I do him, but he has to share responsibility.
The term was first used about Tea Party participants by the half-wit CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and was quickly picked up by other dimwits throughout the media. It spread very quickly and was absolutely used as a term of derogation. That some Tea Party participants turned it around and used it as a self-applied term, either to show that it did not bother them or because they were not hip enough to know the street use of "teabagger," hardly excused Cooper or his imitators and hardly excuses Townsend or his editor, or substantiates his weak rationalization.
Would Townsend like it if his own grandparents, for instance, were referred to with a term like that in their local newspaper?
If not, then he should rethink his rationalization. If he says yes, that he wouldn't care, then the New Paltz Times needs to find someone with a clear sense of professional responsibility to handle reporting assignments. I understand that I write only theoretically in that last sentence, because I know that the Times has insufficient standards to make that sort of judgement.
The ‘elemental thesis’ of ‘Corpse in Armor’
13 years ago
11 comments:
This is why I'm glad I stumbled across your blog. I've always had a desire to stay up to date on the politics in town but the New Paltz Times has always just boiled my blood. I once read an article in that rag about an Iraqi family of refugees who was staying in town. The Iraqi mather was bashing America and pretty much calling our troops terrorists while she was using us for a safe haven. Well... the Times Harold (another liberal rag) had an article about the Iraqi family as well but was at least respectful enough to omit that part of the story. Not the Times. I'm sure their editor loved it!
I ways beginning to think I was the only Conservative in town and it is great to see that I'm not.
I think that there are five or six conservatives around New Paltz. We are an oppressed minority!
The Iraqi family stayed down the street from me and they were quite nice. The kids were real kids.
The New Paltz Times has always been a good source of comedy for me. Go to my other blog: New Paltz Journal II (it's linked on the sidebar) and do a search for 'Stalinpaltz.' You'll have some good laughs.
New Paltz the place is fantastic. I love it. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool New York person and get nervous whenever I cross into another state. But the politics, state and local, test my loyalty.
Teabagging could also involve dropping your nuts on someone's nose. Doesn't have to be mouth. Does that make it more acceptable? My problem with the self-proclaimed tea bag types is that I've seen painfully few who have any knowledge or appreciation of the history they so casually appropriate. As for the New Paltz Times, it's really too easy a target. Aim higher.
I don't care what you do with your nuts, or your nose, pal. This is about a local newspaper calling people names.
The people in the Tea Party movement number in the millions, so it would be hard to judge their individual knowledge of history. But the premise of a tax revolt is virtually the premise of the American Revolution. So it's not that complicated.
It's about not having the government worm eating every blasted thing in your cabinet.
If the average knowledge of history of a typical Tea Party participant is based on what is taught in public school systems or at American universities, then they would tend to not have too great an understanding of the past.
But if they bothered to read just a few decent books on general American history, then they would probably be in the top 5%.
As for aiming higher, the New Paltz Times is the local newspaper. It should aim higher.
P.S.: Get yourself another handle if you want to comment here. I'm not amused.
So your average American is either a blathering idiot or in possession of greater wisdom than any ivy-educated liberal elite...depending on which caricature support the day's thesis, huh?
But seriously, your sensitivity to being called "names" is something that only thin-skinned liberals are supposed to complain about, right? Might you put your money where your mouth is and refrain from calling people childish names on/in your various blogs/comments?
Finally, that you're not amused is a given. Cranky old white dudes never are.
Well, I'd have to say yes to your conclusion (though it's not based on anything in my comment) that the average American is in possession of greater wisdom than the "ivy-educated liberal elite." I would almost go so far as to say that was axiomatic.
That wouldn't be dependent on any caricatures.
And newspapers, whose job it is to report the news, will be out of business even sooner if they want to tag groups of people with vulgar names, in the instant case one that constitutes a sexual slur.
You would have to give me an example of my use of "childish names," when and where. I make no pretense of straight news reporting, though I can be pretty effective in that modality and without taking the privileges of blog commentary.
As for "cranky," yet another person who owns no mirrors.
Pam O'Dell relayed her comment via email:
"I, and other citizens, are the target of the newspapers derogatory language. The issue here is whether the newspaper deliberately used a nasty term, and I believe they did. They were playing to their "base" liberal readers, and I understand that. However, they crossed the journalistic line I don't respect them for that. Mike Townsand and I have crossed paths many times, and I always thought him to be a fair reporter. I've changed my mind. However, look at the paper and their slant, so what else would you expect."
I nearly choked, pardon the unavoidable pun, the first time I heard reference to "tea baggers," "tea bagging," or the "tea bag party" in a political context. I don't see how you can refer to this movement without it sounding like sexual innuendo, regardless of what form of noun or verb you go with. The only safe bet in the current linguistic climate is an actual, honest-to-sunflowers tea bag.
Tea bag protests are rooted in an honored tradition of protest, but their prominence has actually made the ball-dropping variety more well known. Bitching about it isn't going to help; you're just going to have to own the term or give up on the momentum that's been created.
As a side note, all of my liberal friends will tell you that I'm a conservative.
I don't think you get this, Terence.
The term Tea Party is a reference to the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773. And that's the only reference. It has nothing to do with tea bags.
"Teabagger" was used in a clearly derogatory way to refer to the Tea Party rally participants by the dimwit CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. It then caught on with other media dimwits.
It's about the equivalent of deriving "big fake breasts" from the name Pamela because the name Pamela reminds Anderson Cooper of Pamela Anderson.
Regards to knowing our history, I feel that I had a wonderful public education, but am very lax in the American history area. I'm trying to catch up now, and am reading the "Heritage Foundation's Constitution". I will say, however, that I was blown away by the ignorance of one of the New Paltz Times' staff members, who, when seeing my handmade sign that said "Founders Rule", asked me what the Founders meant!
Post a Comment