Sunday, July 31, 2005

Reply from the Express


My post from a few days ago, "Express Train to the Pit", made a few claims about the Express and what I felt was their poor judgment concerning an article in the July 28th edition.

Out of fairness to the Express I will post their response to my email:

"Thank you for taking time to write to us. As the editor, I take your concern very seriously and agree with you that the language used in that piece was entirely inappropriate. As a free publication with wide distribution, it is our practice to avoid offensive language unless it is in a quote that is essential to a news story (and even then, we err on the side of caution). The offensive usage in the Women of Faith piece never should have made it past our editors.I apologize and assure you we will do better in the future.Dan CaccavaroEditorExpress "

Ok. (me again) I am thankful the editor took the time to respond to my email. However, I still don't get the sense that he understands fully the situation. He says he's the editor and yet fails to take responsibility himself for the printing of the article. Who is accountable, if not the editor? I know he can't read every single thing that is published, but he should be the one to take the lumps instead of those enigmatic "editors" who must make up the "we" and "our" ghost committee he keeps referring to. Oh those cursed cursers! It's all their fault!
Besides, the reply seems to say that the term they used was offensive only because of its status as a "dirty word". Which makes me think they don't understand that my offense was more with their making light of my Savior, than with semantics. What will they do in order to "do better in the future" (could you be a little more vague, please), say "gosh darn" instead?

What do you think? Am I just looking for a fight, or do you agree that this response was a little "hedgy"?

3 comments:

The Libertarian Republican said...

I'm surprised that the Express editor even wrote back with more than a form letter. Editors rarely apologize because *someone* will *always* be unhappy with news coverage. They cannot please everyone. You should consider the apology to be a stunning victory. You must have a way with words to have shamed them so.

flippnsweet said...

Thank you, Kris. I was a little surprised myself. I think they realized what a hugely vocal group we angry Christian women can be and didn't want to lose any subscriptions (to the Post, that is). Most people know the Post is ultra liberal anyway and any subscribers (I'm not) who feel as I do, at this point are just there to see what the other guys are up to. If that is the case, I probably should have left them, "unshamed", to continue to post their true, unedited feelings.
Something tells me I don't need to worry much about that, though.

Glenn Dixon said...

Hello all,

I was doing a bit of egosurfing and came across a discussion of the piece about "VeggieTales" and Women of Faith I did for Washington Post Express last summer. For what it's worth, I stand behind what I wrote. I also am not the formerly Christian stormchaser of the same name who writes damnablog.

I have, however, occasionally written and lectured about Christian pop culture:

http://www.emplive.org/visit/education/pop_music_panelists.asp?type=abstract&PopID=25

Thanks for giving me a chance to play identity cop.

Best regards,

Glenn Dixon