 |
 |
|
|||
|
|||||
| |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Home | | About | | Contact | | Donations | | | | |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
_Tim_Page)_small.JPG)
By Jens. F. Laurson and George A. Pieler
When politics meets art, there’s reason for unease. Beethoven, perhaps the most political composer of his time, was stunned when Napoleon abandoned Republican aspirations and crowned himself emperor. The irate composer so vigorously scratched the ‘Eroica’ dedication from its cover page that he pierced the paper. Yet that’s nothing compared with artists confronting the power of modern totalitarian states. Think Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, or – at the extreme – Viktor Ullmann. Fortunately the time when the wrong thing composed or written could bring official (public) recriminations is past. Isn’t it? Well, if you view the uproar over Washington Post music critic Tim Page as an artistic intervention (though ill-advised) into political controversy, you’ll find plenty to disturb still. Mr. Page’s colorful response to an unsolicited e-mail from DC Council Member Marion Barry’s staff is well-known and needn’t be repeated. And as Mr. Page was eager to clarify, it was “not OK”. Indeed rather rude – and no less so for accurately characterizing some of Mr. Barry’s career ‘highlights’. Mr. Barry announced himself “outraged” at this “despicable […] character assassination”, contending that Page’s intemperance was tantamount to a verbal lynching, and that “around the nation, it's almost open season on black people.” Histrionics aside, the music critic might have used better judgment. Mr. Page has been professionally-punished for his un-minced words. But what Mr. Page said was not political commentary, nor public. It was an e-mail to Mr. Barry’s “Communications Director” restating his unfulfilled wish to be freed from SPAM e-mails from Barry Central. Tim Page, the Post eagerly notes, doesn’t cover local politics and has no professional concern with Marion Barry’s activities. He does, however, have a right to express his opinion privately in response to what he considered irritating, if not harassing, blast e-mails from Barry-Central. If Mr. Barry were a commercial enterprise federal law would give Mr. Page rights to be spam-free, but alas, Congress protected itself and all politicos from such anti-spam strictures. Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie – and Mr. Page himself – went out of their way to apologize and Mr. Page is on suspension. But with this kowtow to the allegedly aggrieved Marion Barry – who might have considered just ‘getting over it’ – independent-minded citizens should ask: what was the offense here? Mr. Page’s missive to the Barry camp was private and he clearly did not make it public. So who released the text of his message – and why? A libel, if it were that (truth is a defense), becomes libel only when made public. Mr. Page’s e-mail came after he asked (telephonically) to be relieved of e-mails from that source, which brought a vituperative response from Mr. Andre Johnson, Mr. Barry’s communications aide. The issue was between Page and Johnson and need not have gone beyond that. Was it perhaps worse, because it was private? Washington Post news reports have said many worse things about Mr. Barry merely by reporting the facts. Of course, such facts were meant to be made public. Mr. Page’s views, not. Has the Washington Post similarly sanctioned reporters who may have ruffled the Barry camp? The answer is depressingly clear. Pulitzer Prize or no, music criticism is a low priority for the Post. Sucking up to has-been politicians is much more important, at least if there is some plausible reason for the Post to believe the politician’s constituents will take their business elsewhere. It’s not clear what percentage of Mr. Barry’s adherents care what Mr. Page thinks, though some of them have launched a ‘spontaneous’ mini-boycott of the Post. It is clear that the Post considers those adherents unable to ignore a meaningless personal dispute between a distinguished journalist and a local official who squandered his respected civil rights credentials by repeatedly bringing shame to the nation’s capitol. Any whiff of racism in this pathetic tale, wafts from the Post’s management, not Mr. Page, nor even Mr. Barry. Sadly, it’s not the first time the Post has had trouble with a Pulitzer Prize winner. Janet Cooke won the prize in 1980 for her Post reports on a tragic, juvenile heroin addict in DC. Unfortunately, after the prize was awarded to Cooke, her reports were found to be totally fabricated and she was forced to resign, protesting that pressure from Post higher-ups forced her to lose her judgment. Losing judgment is a very bad thing for a major metropolitan newspaper. Perhaps Mr. Downie and his too-righteous colleagues recall another side to the Janet Cooke story. One major source not only corroborated Cooke’s side, but reported that the DC government was indeed providing drug treatment to Cooke’s fictional “little Jimmy”. That source was Marion Barry. Jens F. Laurson is Editor-in-Chief of the International Affairs Forum. George A. Pieler is Senior Fellow with the Institute for Policy Innovation. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
