Dougherty Arts Center
Most Radical, Least Objective Reporting
RECEIVED Wed., Nov. 9, 2005
To the editor,
This has puzzled me for some time now: The Austin Chronicle is clearly capable of and willing to publish solid pieces of journalism (as evidenced by this week's feature News story, “Justice or Vengeance?,” by Kevin Brass) [News, Nov. 4], yet when it comes to stories dealing with contentious political issues it seems that this weekly always chooses its most radical and least objective writers to cover the assignment, as in the case of the recent article “This Ain't No Picnic: Minutemen on Patrol” (Diana Welch, Oct. 28) [News].
I turned to the article hoping to learn about the Minutemen and what issues their presence creates for the people of the United States and Mexico. What I got was a mean-spirited narrative about a day spent with rednecks and this lead sentence for background information: “Southern border hysteria has a long and dishonorable history, but this latest, half-sinister, half-absurd version began in earnest last year.” The founder of the ACLU's Legal Observer Project was cast in a much more favorable light, of course. When I looked through the author's archive of work it became obvious that Ms. Welch's habit is to smear her enemies by offering only selected details about their positions before jumping to the opposing POV.
It's really a shame that the Chronicle's reporting quality isn't more consistent. I frequently look to you for interesting and important items that aren't covered by the corporate media giants or the sensationalist local news outlets, but the blatant bias of some on your staff is neither funny nor helpful.
This has puzzled me for some time now: The Austin Chronicle is clearly capable of and willing to publish solid pieces of journalism (as evidenced by this week's feature News story, “Justice or Vengeance?,” by Kevin Brass) [News, Nov. 4], yet when it comes to stories dealing with contentious political issues it seems that this weekly always chooses its most radical and least objective writers to cover the assignment, as in the case of the recent article “This Ain't No Picnic: Minutemen on Patrol” (Diana Welch, Oct. 28) [News].
I turned to the article hoping to learn about the Minutemen and what issues their presence creates for the people of the United States and Mexico. What I got was a mean-spirited narrative about a day spent with rednecks and this lead sentence for background information: “Southern border hysteria has a long and dishonorable history, but this latest, half-sinister, half-absurd version began in earnest last year.” The founder of the ACLU's Legal Observer Project was cast in a much more favorable light, of course. When I looked through the author's archive of work it became obvious that Ms. Welch's habit is to smear her enemies by offering only selected details about their positions before jumping to the opposing POV.
It's really a shame that the Chronicle's reporting quality isn't more consistent. I frequently look to you for interesting and important items that aren't covered by the corporate media giants or the sensationalist local news outlets, but the blatant bias of some on your staff is neither funny nor helpful.
Nicole E. Flores
[News Editor Michael King replies: In an article about border vigilantism, it's hardly surprising that legal observers should appear more rational than a self-appointed, untrained, and hysterical posse. Diana Welch spent a day and night with the Minutemen and reported what she saw. As for the sentence, "Southern border hysteria has a long and dishonorable history, but this latest, half-sinister, half-absurd version began in earnest last year" – it may not be funny or helpful, but it happens to be true.]
