Editor should apologize…and he does

Mr. Reaman:
Whether additional government regulation would have prevented or mitigated the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is arguable. Liberal opinion usually defaults to the position that government—and more of it—can prevent or solve any problem. But that’s not the reason for this email.
You obviously disagree with Tea Party supporters who espouse less intrusive and expensive government. No problem. But your use of the gratuitously insulting term “tea baggers” in your April 30 editorial is unworthy of a professional journalist.
You have decades of experience in the news business. You co-founded the Crested Butte Weekly and now edit Crested Butte’s only print news medium. An editorial is, of course, an opinion piece. But the arguments presented therein, no matter how well reasoned, are undermined by the juvenile tactic of calling a group of people with whom you disagree a dirty name. This lapse of judgment and taste calls into question the journalistic objectivity and fairness you bring to your duties as a reporter and editor.
Moreover, while most of your publication’s readership is politically and socially liberal, a substantial minority is not. They surely must feel, as I do, that the News—whether or not they agree with its editorial slant—is “their” newspaper too. Your use of snide and hateful language can only cause many readers to think less of you, the Crested Butte News, and the community your paper presents to the world.
I am not a Tea Party member. I have never attended a Tea Party rally and have no intention of ever doing so. But I believe you owe your readers—of all persuasions—an apology for your offensive and sophomoric use of a disgusting, bigoted slur.
 
Steve Haggart
Colorado Springs/Crested Butte

Dear Mr. Haggart:
First, thanks for writing. Hey, I’ve never claimed to be a professional journalist but I’ll take that as a compliment. Second, you aren’t the first to bring this to my attention this week and you are not wrong.
While I don’t think pointing a finger at the Tea Partiers was bigoted, disgusting, hateful or offensive, I admit in hindsight it was gratuitous, somewhat sophomoric and certainly unnecessary in the context of the editorial. I apologize.
What I was trying to get across was that while I surely don’t think more government is necessarily better for anyone, I think there is definitely a place for proper, good, government regulation. I think perhaps stricter controls and inspections might have helped prevent the accident in the Gulf or there might have been better preparation to deal with this disaster after the fact. Maybe. Maybe not.
But I would venture that if it were left entirely up to the corporations who are justifiably beholden to their shareholders, few of us would be surprised if there weren’t more of these types of accidents. Government has a role in the common good. Too often these days, there seems a too cozy relationship between corporations and government.
Many in the Tea Party movement seem to want to simply shout for less government but give no concrete suggestions on how to shrink the behemoth. I haven’t heard many willing to delay their Social Security payments or suggest cutting the defense budget dramatically. Still, a shot at the Tea Partiers wasn’t right last week. That might be worthy of a future editorial and I will try to be less sophomoric and not generalize with a broad brush.
Thank you for your letter.

–Mark Reaman