I can't blame the nameless staff person who wrote the essay for hesitating to sign his name to it. Who would want his name associated with such a juvenile essay?
I can and do blame the editor of the Baptist Messenger for printing the editorial. How can you look at yourself in a mirror when you know that you are publishing material so obviously distorted that no one is willing to take credit for writing it?
Published from my iPhone.
3 comments:
Bruce, I believe the Messenger "Staff" is jealous that Carter is succeeding in leading diverse groups of Baptists toward achieving unity. What a shame it is for nameless people to accuse the former President of being guilty of promoting divisiveness.
I have a hunch that the "Staff" can be narrowed down to two people.
Bruce,
Just because the editorial is critical of Carter, does that automatically make it juvenile? You may think that Jimmy Carter is out there promoting unity among the Baptist brethren. But there are many in this state that believe him to be a very polarizing figure.
In reference to the SBC and past events, he has used his name and position as former President to side with moderates and criticize leadership within the SBC. That doesn't sound like a message of unity to me.
As a statesman, he has gone over the top in criticizing President Bush, even stooping so low as to attack him at a funeral several years ago. I have lost respect for him and consider him with suspicion every time he speaks.
I would have had no problem putting my name on that article. The truth cuts both ways!
In discussing whether the writers of SBC Outpost were protecting themselves by publishing posts as "staff", Greg Harvey made the following observation, which is worthy of consideration.
"...USAToday (Gannett), Wall Street Journal, New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Post. Each paper publishes its own editorials without byline or attribution and, as such, they are chosen by the editorial board with the concurrence of the publisher (on behalf of the owner) to represent the position of the institution itself."
This secular practice does not prove the Messenger "Staff" is right to remain "anonymous". But it is a commonly accepted practice.
Post a Comment