"Sorry I wasn't clear. We allow comments on editorials and signed staff columns because they are written by staff people who are able to monitor and participate in those dialogues.That is at odds with the facts too. Columns by freelancer Ed Cone allow comments, as do all of the other freelancers. Even Davenport's column from August allowed comments.
Not so with free-lancers."
Contrary to Allen's initial explanation, comments are allowed on columns about race. Contrary to Allen's second explanation, comments are allowed on columns by freelancers.
So why were comments not allowed on Davenport's most recent column? Who knows? One thing is sure, it was not for any of the reasons offered by the News & Record's editorial page editor.
This kind of thing is so Greensboro, and so tiresome: Someone in a position of authority is asked a direct question and proceeds by jerking the questioner around. It is so small. Greensboro deserves better.
Update: On his third try, Allen says, contrary to the evidence, it really is that they do not allow comments on columns about race... or sex.
Sounds like what he meant to say was, "We knew that column was awful and would generate tons of horrible comments so we closed comments on that one."
ReplyDeleteSave themselves the future trouble of "mis-explaining" and just don't run columns they can't stand up to comments.
Thank you, Sue. We haven't been "in sync" much lately, but your explanation is one that occurred to me to and, unlike Allen's, is not contradicted by the facts.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, Allen should have just said so. We might very well have ended up having an aggravating conversation about the quality of Davenport's columns, but at least we would be having an honest conversation.
When people offer up excuses in place of truthful explanations, they are like thieves. They are robbing our community of an opportunity to honestly discuss, reflect upon and influence our institutions. It is really a determent to Greensboro's progress.