Comments on: Racism + Sexism in the Providence Journal http://ericstoller.com/blog/2006/12/28/racism-sexism-in-the-providence-journal/ | social justice | higher education | technology | Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:56:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Eric Stoller http://ericstoller.com/blog/2006/12/28/racism-sexism-in-the-providence-journal/#comment-3569 Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:24:39 +0000 http://ericstoller.com/blog/2006/12/28/racism-sexism-in-the-providence-journal/#comment-3569 I've been reading the "Projo" for more than 2 weeks during my stay in Rhode Island and they are fairly consistent with their editorial pieces. Letters to the editor which support racism, sexism, abstinence only education, homophobia, etc. are more likely to be printed than letters which are anti-oppression oriented. I feel that the Providence Journal's contributor articles, letters to the editor, and editorial pieces all combine to send an anti-social justice message to its readers. I’ve been reading the “Projo” for more than 2 weeks during my stay in Rhode Island and they are fairly consistent with their editorial pieces. Letters to the editor which support racism, sexism, abstinence only education, homophobia, etc. are more likely to be printed than letters which are anti-oppression oriented. I feel that the Providence Journal’s contributor articles, letters to the editor, and editorial pieces all combine to send an anti-social justice message to its readers.

]]> by: Dennis http://ericstoller.com/blog/2006/12/28/racism-sexism-in-the-providence-journal/#comment-3566 Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:18:24 +0000 http://ericstoller.com/blog/2006/12/28/racism-sexism-in-the-providence-journal/#comment-3566 A quick question: Does it make any difference for you that the Hillary piece was a letter to the editor? Because from a journalistic perspective, letters to the editor are considered much different than, say, editorial columns or articles. The key difference is that the newspaper is in some way not responsible for the content of the letter. For example, the forum editor for the paper in question may (let's hope) think that the letter is totally wrong - yet still print it, both to let the writer make a fool of themselves and because they may not see any grounds for *not* printing the letter. Or, to put it another way (at least in regards to the letter): Where do you draw the line between free speech and moral speech? Isn't the answer to bad speech more speech, not censorship? Or am I missing something here? A quick question: Does it make any difference for you that the Hillary piece was a letter to the editor?

Because from a journalistic perspective, letters to the editor are considered much different than, say, editorial columns or articles. The key difference is that the newspaper is in some way not responsible for the content of the letter. For example, the forum editor for the paper in question may (let’s hope) think that the letter is totally wrong - yet still print it, both to let the writer make a fool of themselves and because they may not see any grounds for *not* printing the letter.

Or, to put it another way (at least in regards to the letter): Where do you draw the line between free speech and moral speech? Isn’t the answer to bad speech more speech, not censorship? Or am I missing something here?

]]>