What a disappointment. It seems as though New Times is drifting further to the right with each passing week. First is your insistence upon running frequent columns by Al Fonzi, a veteran whose barely readable screeds present a jumbled version of Fox News and right-wing talking points that meander so illogically that attempting to follow his arguments becomes as trying as walking a night patrol through the jungle in enemy territory. Then there is John Donegan, a “retired attorney” whose cutesy, self-satisfied columns also defy logic to the point where one wonders how he ever made it through law school.
Donegan’s latest column is as baffling as it is pointless. He begins by smugly presenting the “Let’s go, Brandon” phenomenon, a frat-boy level inanity not even worth mentioning in serious discourse. Donegan then makes an astounding leap from this “instantly disprovable lie” to constructing a shameless attack upon mainstream media such as “CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.,” conveniently failing to mention the dangerous deceptions offered daily by the likes of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity concerning Trump’s bogus claims that the election was stolen or that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was somehow a left-wing setup or a tourist stroll through a federal building.
Donegan then continues his attack on the media by mentioning a few well-know examples of overreach such as Dan Rather’s 2004 use of forged documents and a fabricated story in Rolling Stone from 2014. While these historic examples may be noteworthy as instances of shabby reporting, their relevance to Donegan’s assault on present-day media sources is tenuous at best. But Donegan, not to be silenced, charges forward, claiming that recently, “we have seen the industry repeatedly dissemble on COVID-19 and the pandemic to serve their agendas.” What sources is he talking about and what, exactly, were the lies he seems so outraged about?
Donald Trump called the press the “enemy of the people,” a dangerous statement that attempts to discredit both a right enshrined in our Constitution and our most valuable tool in keeping would-be tyrants and demagogues in check by holding them accountable for their deeds and statements. Donegan’s column, convoluted as it is, clearly sends the same message to his readers, and New Times, in continuing to publish his columns, is perpetuating the destructive myths Donegan obviously wants to promote. It is fine to present alternative viewpoints, but from my perspective New Times continues to favor the amateur ramblings of extremist commentators such as Fonzi and Donegan over the more reasoned commentators you occasionally print.
Rauol Wise
Pismo Beach
This article appears in Holiday Guide 2021.
I am pleased to see that Rauol Wise was able to pull himself away from the riveting antics of his favorite internet influencers, and let me know just how he feels. Since “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” went off the air, I imagine that he has found himself with a lot of time on his hands. I am honored to find myself joining fellow conservative Al Fonzi as a target of his wrath. It had often seemed that Al was getting all the attention of the local Woketariat, and it hurt my feelings to be overlooked.
I apologize if my piece on “Let’s go Brandon” neglected to mention the Jan. 6 riot. A confession: I am also going to overlook it in my Christmas cards this year. Sorry.
I also apologise if I failed to list the lies of the media during the pandemic. It would have spared Mr. Wise reading my column last month, in which I detailed them. Since many readers have probably wearied of reading my rants on the subject, and since the editor brutally excises my prose when I get overly wordy, I decided not to include it.
Mr. Wise’s assault on me for criticising the media and threatening free speech, in which he then attacks the New Times for having the audacity of printing the views of Fonzi and myself, reveals that perhaps Wise’s thinking is too blinkered to recognize the contradiction. The best irony is unintentional.
Mr. Wise must find a world which refuses to recognize and obey his moral and intellectual primacy, to be a bleak and intolerable place.
I, too, find some of the commentaries published in the New Times difficult to follow.
Often, I give up and end up wondering whatever happened to my lifelong ability to
understand the written word.
Is it me or the writer?
So, seeing I am not alone
reassures me my mind is not failing after all.
Come on John, make up your mind. It is either the standard American English apologize or the British apologise. You cannot have it both ways. And his name is Raoul. Get it together man. People actually read your tripe, though I am not sure why. You are kind of like that old man perpetually yelling, Hey kid, get off my lawn.
Gosh, Mike, I just spelled the writer’s name the way he signed it. For someone who is picky about spelling, you are rather sloppy on accuracy. My inconsistent use of the British spelling of “apologize” merely reflects my ambivalence about our brethern across the pond and their preference for tea over coffee. If you read my “tripe” despite finding it offensive ( an unfair slam on menudo), perhaps you should seek therapy for your masochistic tendencies. Your readership seems disturbingly consistent, and there are plenty of other free publications available for the ideologically squeamish. And, yes, please keep off of my lawn. The use of a “doggie” clean up baggie when a mess is left is even more appropriate for those who aren’t actually walking a dog. The neighbors have commented on the spectacle created by your visits.
John–Not sure where the misspelling of my name came from but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t my fault. As far as my affinity for Honey Boo Boo, rest assured that those of us who enjoy the show can still stream it anytime we want on Netflix. It really has aged quite well and maybe you should give it a second look?
Regarding my letter, well, my main intention in writing it was this: while yes, there may be media overreach from all quarters, left and right (isn’t this inherent in public discourse?), the current right-wing assault on the press is becoming increasingly insidious in that it appears to be undermining many of the norms we have assumed in our democratic system–particularly the assumption that our elections involve a sacred trust that underlies the foundations and principles of our nation. Trump’s disproven assertion that he won an election that he clearly lost has thrown a monkey wrench in the whole works which, considering the zealousness of his many followers, is having terrible repercussions, including the Jan. 6 attack on the capitol.
Your editorial contained a lot of sweeping statements unsubstantiated by any real, specific examples, and therein lies my objection. As such, it really just presents the sort of knee-jerk, blanket condemnation of “the media” that Trump and his followers have been presenting since he appeared on the scene, creating an alternate reality where solid journalism based upon actual facts is torn down in the face of outlandish claims by right-wing extremists, conspiratorial websites like Q-anon, and Trump himself. And while your article did not specifically mention Trump or Jan. 6, the subtext is very clear. And I don’t think any commentator can or should assume that the reader is familiar with his or her previous writings.
As far as the irony of my condemnation of your and Fonzi’s editorials, I wasn’t really calling for censorship. What irks me is that you and Fonzi appear to be the only regular columnists these days in New Times and this had been the case for a long time. I’d like to see alternative views also presented on an ongoing basis, since, honestly, what both of you seem to be doing is just re-hashing the tired old talking points repeated constantly on right-wing media, degenerating our public discourse to the level of “let’s go Brandon.” Nothing personal, and happy holidays.
Let’s go Brandon!!!!!!
Raoul: I wasn’t blaming anybody for the misspelling. It was just more “fake news” from the media.
Fonzi and myself are the only conservative voices in the New Times. And, believe it or not, we are both pretty moderate in the context of the national discourse. SLO is not the norm. Almost all of the others, including the Shredder which appears in every issue, are reliably leftist. The New Times is merely trying to offer alternative views to the prevailing mindset in SLO, and avoid an “echo chamber” effect of reciprocal affirmation. Your dismissing the deliberate outright media lies I listed as merely “shoddy reporting” reveals a fairly forgiving view of leftist deceit.
Conservative grumbling about stolen electionss, etc. pales next to what we heard from the Democrats after the elections in 2016 and 2000. And it was never “proven” that there wasn’t electoral fraud. Trump was unable to prove that there was any, and thus should have dropped his claims. But an inability to prove is not proof of the opposite.
The national media have become active participants in trying to directly control policy, rather than just report upon it and offer opinions.. As such, they are as subject to criticism as the rest of the political class. An example was the concerted campaign to “shout down” any discussion of the lab release theory of the origin of Covid, by depicting any discussion of it as somehow racist and inciting violence against Asians. They also managed to have it censored on social media, until the FBI concluded that it was the most likely theory. I hope that you would agree that censorship of a credible theory on an issue of such importance is frightening.
Unlike the left and their cancel culture, and the censorship of anything deemed “fakenews” or “hate speech” in the subjective view of liberals, conservatives do not seek to censor anything. The media is under no threat from us. We just point out the destructive influence they have in pursuing their commercial interests and political agenda in polarizing issues like race and the police, but realize the dangerous potential for abuse of any control of content.
I also wish you happy Holidays. This outlet for vigorous political discussion helps avoid familial violence at the dinner table from volatile topics.