Observer response ignores ad's text
Dan Delgado
class of '97
The Observer staff stated: "In truth, the decision regarding whether to print the advertisement is not a free speech issue." They are absolutely right. How can it be about the free speech when, instead, The Observer chose to focus on Mr. Horowitz and his "tactics?"
The Observer offered: "The decision to reject the advertisement was obvious." What are those obvious points? The language was described as "volatile." Examples? The Observer "had doubts about the reliability of the information presented as facts." What kind of journalism is that? How about presenting facts that refute those of Mr. Horowitz?
The entire issue revolves around Mr. Horowitz's advertisement. That is the only thing that is obvious, and therefore, it is completely about free speech. Of course, The Observer does not have to print it. There's no question about that. However, what exact items were so "obvious" that the piece was dismissed? Why the staff statement if you were not going to say exactly what parts made it unworthy? Why didn't The Observer address the actual text?
The Observer also brought up the past advertisement from CODOH and directly compared it to Mr. Horowitz' s piece when the staff spoke of dismissing it. Seeing as how The Observer stated that CODOH was "blatantly anti-Semitic," couldn't one also draw the conclusion The Observer is then basically saying Horowitz's article was blatantly anti-African-American? The Observer also stated that it "has a history of fighting to ensure its pages ... are unbiased." Why can't the editors fight to ensure their minds are unbiased?
I actually read Mr. Horowitz's article with an unbiased mind. I blocked out his comments of "racial separatists" and "the political left" and looked solely at the points he made. Then I envisioned myself in a debate. If a moderator brought up the topic of "reparations" and I was given the assignment of having to debate against them, I would have to make the points Mr. Horowitz made.
The "obvious" move to reject the advertisement that made valid points is the equivalent of completely dismissing an opposing point of view and suggesting that only one side is correct.
The Observer did not have to print the advertisement, and I have no problem with that. However, The Observer's statement on why it rejected the article had nothing to do with the actual text or the issue of reparations. Instead, they made it a power struggle and stumbled all over themselves by showing their bias.
Dan Delgado
class of '97
March 29, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Wednesday, April 4, 2001
