TALKING BACK TO THE TEXAS TRIB'S TRIBTALK

One of the great disappointments of the Internet Age has been the failure to create forums to foster respectful, insightful debate and discussion. Trolls trash conversation in a give-and-get that's an "eye for an eye that leaves the whole world blind." 

Recently, the Texas Tribune launched "TribTalk," their long-awaited "digital forum for dialogue and debate about the day’s news. Think of it as an op-ed page for the 21st century."

TribTalk's editor, David Muto, has the challenging task of extracting civil discussion from the toxic stew that is Texas politics. The Trib is working with University of Texas' "Engaging News Project" to see about developing new strategies to unlock the potential that has, thus far, been untapped. 

This project is, by design, a work-in-progress. Like fracking, the techniques now deployed may have unintended consequences requiring attention. Thus far, one post in particular seems particularly problematic. If, as Muto says, his goal is to foster "thoughtful and courteous discourse on the issues that matter," this needs to be addressed.

GOP "Apologist" Sylvester

Sherry Sylvester's "The Problem with 'Abortion Barbie'" purports to be a call for Conservatives to "hold (themselves) to the standard of behavior that is required of Christians." Here, the grotesque "Abortion Barbie" prank pulled by an Abbott supporter to assault Wendy Davis (explored by yours truly in detail) should be a wakeup call: 

There is no way for us to hold the moral high ground if our tactics include name-calling and sexist attacks, even though those tactics are often used against us.

So this is an "apology" for an Abbott supporter's violation of the norms and standards for civil behavior? 

It begins by accusing Democrats of "name-calling and sexist attacks." This thinly-veiled hit-piece goes downhill from there. The specious spite spewed under the guise of Christian Charity alternates between finger-pointing and finger-wagging. 

Among the gems:

• Democrats "may be as committed to their faith as (conservatives) are," but you'd never know it. 

• Wendy Davis is a "big-government-supporting tax-and-spender" promoting "over-the-top pro-abortion positions."

• Davis' supporters at her "pro-abortion filibuster" were "hateful, in the true sense of the word."

• "Our liberal opponents frequently litter their arguments with name-calling and condescension, for which they often get a pass." 

• The Democrat's "fast-talking spokesmouths have adopted sarcasm and hatefulness as a communications strategy." 

• "...outnumbered Democrats rambled on for hours, alternating between falsehoods, hyperbole and cheap shots" at an unnamed committee hearing last legislative session.

On top of all this, Sylvester offers a revisionist history aimed at discrediting Leticia Van de Putte. She says that, like Wendy's other supporters at the filibuster, the Senator was also hateful and contemptuous. Her celebrated moment that night calling out GOP bullying? Just "crowd-pandering and (an)opportunistic comment."

This is "thoughtful and courteous discourse on the issues that matter"???

When I first saw this piece, I simply posted a comment providing a link to my original reporting on the Abbott supporter's abortion prank. Then, after some reflection, I figured I should weigh in on this in some detail. I didn't want to simply expose Sylvester's "apology." The "issues that matter" here? How to take her "discussion" to a different level and a different direction?

It seemed to me that this raises the problem of Christianizing for political gain. I submitted "The Naked Narcissism of Public Piety" Friday morning. Yes, it's a pointed piece - provocative, in fact. I was careful to strike a proper tone, an appropriate match to Sylvester's.

Late in the afternoon, I got my rejection from Muto:

Thanks for submitting! Unfortunately, we only have room for one or two guest columns per week and this doesn't fit our editorial needs right now, but thanks for your interest and keep us in mind in the future.

A structural problem needing adjustment

As a professional writer, I live with rejection. No big deal. Move onto the next pitch! But I see a structural issue here. If they publish the likes of "The Problem with 'Abortion Barbie'," then they should reserve space for rebuttal above-and-beyond online comments. No, they don't have to take MY piece. But someone should be able to respond, at the very least like a letter to the editor.

So I wrote back:

I DO hope that someone will be permitted to answer Ms. Sylvester's hit piece in some detail. That really is necessary.

I'm not sure if you're aware of how inflammatory her accusations are - like characterizing Wendy Davis as "pro abortion" - that's really over-the-top.

I know that you're just getting started, but if you allow third-parties like that to do surrogate work for campaigns, it seems appropriate that there's balance. 

Let's see what Muto has to say. Honestly, I think he was mistaken to publish Sylvester's hit-piece in the first place. It has NO PLACE in a publication fostering "thoughtful and courteous discourse on the issues that matter." But, having made the mistake of accepting it, will TribTalk accept its responsibility to offer "thoughtful and courteous" rebuttal?

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

Twitter: @inanityofsanity