THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 9, 1995 TAG: 9507090053
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Medium: 92 lines
This should have been a sleepy July 4th week in the public editor's office. Instead, fireworks went off on at least two fronts.
Readers accused the newspaper of:
1. Showing disrespect and lack of patriotism by running a July 4th story debunking the country's founding fathers.
2. Eroding family values and flaunting indecent behavior by publishing a story about a lesbian couple in The Daily Break.
The July 4th story was a cheeky piece from a newspaper in that cradle of independence, the Philadelphia Inquirer. The writer decided to look behind the names on the Declaration of Independence and concluded that our founding fathers were quite human.
In fact, he wrote, ``Some were scoundrels; others, preening peacocks.'' Worse, he had the gall to refer to Thomas Jefferson getting huffy when fellow delegates edited his ``turgid prose.''
One of the first things I learned as public editor was never to take Thomas Jefferson's name in vain; not in Virginia, anyway. In April '93, The Pilot ran a story comparing the legendary American statesman with a former Soviet leader. The headline said, ``On T.J.'s birthday, Gorbachev stole the show.''
Readers bristled at the casual reference. ``How dare you refer to Thomas Jefferson as T.J.?'' one woman asked. ``He's not O.J. Simpson, the ballplayer.'' And Simpson wasn't even in trouble back then!
So you can imagine what some folks had to say about a story that showed Jefferson displaying a moment of petulance.
David Jackman, for one, wasn't amused. He didn't like the content, the timing or the fact that it took a shot at the Virginia hero.
``This is front-page mockery,'' said Jackman, a Virginia Beach resident. ``Tasteless and bad timing, on the birthday of the United States of America. This is a mocking article on our founding fathers, and it's wrong.''
Carolyn Pratts, on the other hand, thought it was delightful; she even sent a copy to a history-buff friend. A former elementary-school principal, Pratts also enjoyed rereading the Declaration of Independence, which was reprinted - as it is every year - on the editorial page.
``I loved the whole thing,'' said Pratts, a Virginia Beach resident. ``I thought it was wonderful.''
I'll side with Pratts on this. I don't think a healthy chuckle about our past makes one any less patriotic. But maybe the article went a little too far in looking for trouble.
For example, editorial writer Keith Monroe questioned the story's portraying signer Robert Morris as less than admirable because he landed in debtor's prison.
``Far from being a sleazeball,'' said Monroe, ``Morris was one of the noblest of the founders, who went bankrupt while helping to finance the American Revolution and never regretted the sacrifice.''
The second backlash of the week was Thursday's Daily Break story about ``Alice & Carol,'' a sensitive portrayal of two women who have been ``growing old together'' for 23 years. The story was as much about their religious devotion as their relationship, but the word ``lesbian'' in the headline unleashed a volley of angry response.
Many of the callers admitted they hadn't read the story and had no desire to. They objected merely to its being there, its length (almost two pages) and its presence in a feature section seen by young readers.
Others had more insightful concerns.
``I really don't have a problem with homosexuality,'' said Mary Lou Ocheltree of Norfolk. ``What people do behind closed doors is their business. that you're trying to get this accepted as a lifestyle.''
Joanne Sieloff of Virginia Beach accused the newspaper of just looking for the offbeat in portraying Christianity. First, she said, there was last weekend's story about ``holy laughter'' at an Episcopal revival. And then Thursday, the story about the homosexual couple.
``It's about time you started educating people that Christians are not weird,'' said Sieloff, ``that we're just like everyone else and we care about the way we're viewed in the newspaper.''
Well, it's true that journalists are attracted to the offbeat, but what struck me was how ordinary this couple was. And I can't buy the argument that writing about a lesbian couple means that the newspaper is advocating homosexuality, any more than writing about the Declaration of Independence means that we're trying to stir up a revolution.
I think a newspaper has a responsibility to increase our understanding of the people around us and the community we live in. Then it's up to us to accept or reject, to join in or to turn aside.
I'm glad to know more about our founding fathers, and I have no less respect for what they did after reading the July 4th story. I'm glad to have gotten a glimpse of Alice and Carol's lives and I respect their devotion - to each other and to the people they help. MEMO: Call the public editor at 446-2475, or send a computer message to
lynn(AT)infi.net
by CNB