Inspired by Randolph06’s post yesterday Media Accountability Made Easy: Contact the newspapers that called for Clinton resignation, I contacted said editors, using a modified version of Randoplh06’s own complaint. I added my own points and changed some phraseology, sprinkling liberal doses of snark, but maintaining the original’s structure, so see the original post for the gist of what I sent.
To my utter shock, the editorial page editor of USA TODAY responded. Here is what he sent me:
[YallaDog]
Thank you for your email regarding Donald Trump and the 1998 editorial board’s call for Bill Clinton’s resignation. We want to respond to your concern and the similar comments we received from many other writers in response to a blog post.
Please be assured that the editorial board, which operates by consensus, considers these matters sensitively, thoughtfully and on a case-by-case basis. The current board has been highly critical of President Trump and has made no secret of its belief that he is unfit for office.
Our guidepost is what’s best for the United States, based on real-world considerations. Our current consensus (subject to change based on new developments) is that, even as congressional investigations continue, it is preferable for voters to determine Trump’s fate next November in lieu of fruitless efforts by Democrats or pundits to push him from office.
Best regards,
Bill Sternberg
Editorial Page Editor
Office: 703.854.4581
Twitter: @bsternbe
Note that the first ‘graph acknowledges the reach of Randolph06’s post, in what was probably meant to be a subtle dig at me for following the heard. But that is the highlight. It is all downhill from there. So, I wrote a response:
Mr. Sternberg,
All due respect, but "fruitless efforts" by Republicans to oust Clinton didn't stop your paper's editorial board from calling for Clinton's resignation. Why should any such sentiment prevent you for calling for Trump's resignation? It is about taking a stand against this man who, as you admit, "is unfit for office." To have taken that stand in 1998 when it was not warranted, and not to do it now when it most certainly is warranted is the height of hypocrisy and cowardice.
I thank you for taking the time to respond, but sadly, the response is frankly pathetic. I have no respect for it or your reasoning. It is neither consistent nor evenhanded. Maybe one can consider "these matters sensitively, thoughtfully and on a case-by-case basis," in normal times, but these are times of crises created by this man's unfitness, cruelty, and ignorance. These times scream out for a principled stand against this malignant narcissist and sociopath. And instead I get your weak-tea response.
Yes, voters can do their duty and show up and cast their vote against this stain on our country, and I plan to not only be one but to bring a 100 like-minded folks with me. That doesn't remove your responsibility as an editorial board to do your job, and speak truth to power. Shirking that responsibly is a crime against the sacred trust the founders put in the fourth estate (that's you). If you can't or won't do that, what use are you?
History will not be kind to people like you. It will shame you, no matter what else you have done or achieved. That's the magnitude of this moment.
It is sad that your "consensus" cannot grasp that.
Regards,
[YallaDog]
If it seems harsh, it is because I am totally over the normalizers in the MSM. They compound the damage Trump does by pretending its just the normal noises in here. This is a time of crises and our individual and collective responses to it must be proportional. Thanks to Randolph06 for the original call to action and letting me crib and modify that original note of complaint. It felt good to bandy a few words around and if you are feeling a bit restless, I recommend jumping in and sending something of your own either using the original post’s contacts or maybe directly to Mr. Sternberg’s twitter account or email (bsternbe@usatoday.com).