Gentle sparring with the Star City Harbinger over a story I wrote

(Note: I wrote a story for the Roanoke Star-Sentinel about Melvin Williams, one of many candidates on the Republican side for William Fralin's 17th House District seat in the General Assembly. Excerpts follow .... then Hank Bostwick, an attorney and the man behind the "Star City Harbinger" blog, read into what I wrote - or didn't write. A little back and forth follows - along with a comment from Star-Sentinel publisher Stuart Revercomb. Pretty good reading! So is Hank's blog by the way)

(original Star City Harbinger post)

Whoever planned Republican Melvin Williams’ debut on the political scene last week owes that man an apology. Opening his campaign from the 17th District GOP nomination as the closing act to the “official” announcement of the de facto Democratic nominee provides a teachable moment in flaccid campaign kickoffs.

Williams‘ street-side message lost any resonance it might have had to the din of a day of dual announcements–after a weekend of speculation and chatter–following the previous Friday’s false start and a leaked message about a “possible” announcement from a mystery candidate. Amid the obvious confusion, The Roanoke Times gave his campaign only a few sentences in a larger piece about candidate possibilities.

The most significant press Williams’ received last week was in a piece by the Roanoke Star-Sentinel’s Gene Marrano (whose work we usually enjoy). Even that didn’t go well.

On the same day The Roanoke Times reported that the Roanoke region’s unemployment level dramatically increased last month, Marrano reports Williams as “hearkening” back to a special time without all those pesky things like unemployment insurance, or temporary assistance to needy families or . . . general anaesthesia:

[The pioneers that settled America] . . . they didn’t ask for a handout . . . there was no safety net for them.

This is simply pointless patriotic pablum. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. What it reveals, however, is that Williams wants to play the same old worn out rhetorical game with the same old “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” cliches.

Williams tacks on a measure of Compassionate Conservatism Redux to overemphasize the redundancy:

[He] said “yes, people do need help from time to time,” but he wants to see communities and faith-based organizations get more involved.

Again, maybe Williams didn’t read this article from The Roanoke Times noting that local faith-based food banks are begging for state aid.

Predictably Williams endorses what Marrano describes as the “hands-off approach from (sic) government . . . ‘that tradition that’s made America great.’” A significant majority of Americans believe that the sort of extreme deregulation of the financial markets (i.e., smaller government) embodied in a completely laissez-faire, hands-off approach to governance is one of the primary causes of the current recession. Williams would appear to wish to exacerbate the problem.

... (so on and so forth)


>>> 3 Responses to “SCH’s first whack at Williams”

1. Gene Marrano on March 16th, 2009 10:45 am

SCH writer: You misread my piece in the Roanoke Star-Sentinel on Melvin Williams. It’s not my place to add things that Williams didn’t talk about when he announced a run for the 17th House District seat.

I was not writing a column - if he wants to gloss over things like unemployment insurance, lack of help for needy families etc. in making a statement like this:

“Williams harkened back to the pioneers that settled America: “they didn’t ask for a handout…there was no safety net for them,” he declared during a news conference. ”

… then that’s his perogative. Readers can then make up their own mind about whether Williams is in denial or whatever

Conveniently, you also left out the comment I secured from Williams after the announcement, when he conceded that there is a time and place for government:

“There is a place for government when people have no other options Williams conceded, but the first option should be assistance from the communities.” He also works with defendants that cannot pay their child support, due to a lack of work or other conditions. “The government needs to be there at times,” said Williams, whose grandfather was a member of the House if Delegates in Maryland.”

Please understand the difference between a straight news, factual account of an event and an op-ed, blog or otherwise, where the writer throws his own two cents in.

GM

>>> 2. Hank Bostwick on March 16th, 2009 11:03 am

Gene,

Your comment is appreciated; however, it is a bit perplexing. How can one “misread” a report about a campaign opening? You weren’t writing an op-ed or an editorial. So what there is to “misread” is beyond me?

If Williams did not say the things you reported him as saying, then you should print a retraction; otherwise, it is difficult to tell where your beef is coming from.

If you don’t agree with the political spin I put on Williams’ comments, that is one thing, but “methinks thou dost protest too much.”

You chose to filter his comments and focus on the ones preferred by your readership. Our critique of those comments is fair game.

The fact of the matter is that your piece defined Williams in a way that we find problematic.

Remember: we have a progressive agenda. You write for a conservative weekly.

There are bound to be differences.

>>> 3. Gene Marrano on March 16th, 2009 3:13 pm

First of all, many of the writers and columnist for the Roanoke Star-Sentinel are not conservative. I’ll let you guess who is what. You might be surprised. Don’t jump to conclusions.

Secondly, you were asking me to interject into my piece more so-called liberal talking points, when that is not my place.

Williams defined himself. I did not do the refining. I filtered and focused on nothing; you are reading into it an agenda I do not have.

You sound like Robert Craig or one of the other conspiracy theorists (same boring, pedantic ones) that are always addressing City Council. Retraction? of what?

Nuff said, peace

GM

>>> Hank - I read both the piece and your and Gene's tit for tat and it seems pretty clear to me that for some reason you're trying to make it sound like Gene was somehow responsible for what the candidate said . . .

Seems to me he just reported the facts of the news conference straight up. Which was run along side two democratic announcements of similar scope and equal presentation.

All very strange.

- Stuart

PS And I am curious - what in your mind makes us conservative? Is it something we publish(ed)? Or perhaps didn't? Being a 99% local coverage publication we really don't get much into politics. Would love some clarification on where that comes from.