Hearing Voices?
Earlier today, the Editorial Collective was pleased to learn that one of our articles has elicited a substantial response from the newest addition to Eutopia's rapidly growing media scene, the
St Brenden's Times. We must admit, however, that we are somewhat perplexed by that paper's insistence at calling our paper the "People's Voice"; while this is indeed the role we aspire to, it is certainly not the name we have chosen. We refer reader's to the title section of our paper.
We are also somewhat surprised that the SBT would feel a need to attack our paper as a "mouthpiece" of the "more left-wing elements" within the RD. While the Public Interest is, in fact, sympathetic towards the RD (as well as the ERP and the ESRP), attentive readers will have noticed that the editorial statement has refrained from identifying our paper with any one party or, indeed, with specific groupings within parties. If the SBT has somehow managed to develop a deeper understanding of our editorial policies than we ourselves have, we would be grateful if they could share their insights with us; after all, self-knowledge is important.
Regarding their article itself: the SBT points out that the FR never used the term "extremist" to describe the RD; that is very true, but as our paper never claimed they did, we aren't entirely sure why this is an issue in the first place. On a more fundamental level, the SBT's position is somewhat disingenuous: the FR's references to the RD are replete with the term "ultra-leftist." That term very clearly denotes an extreme position, both in everyday language and according to the dictionary; thus, Webster's defines "ultra" as "going beyond others or beyond due limit: extreme," while the Cambridge Dictionary simply defines it as "extreme or extremely." It is the FR's habit of describing *any* Leftist policies as "ultra-leftist" that prompted our paper's question just where the FR locates Left and Right on its political compass - a question that remains open.
The SBT further claims that the RD itself "admits" that it offers a home to moderate socialists. In fact, the RD "admitted" no such thing; it was a description of the RD penned by our paper. We also note the loaded nature of the SBT's vocabulary here: the RD allegedly "admits" to counting moderate socialists among its members, and "even" our "propaganda article" did not "deny" this. Apparently, the SBT believes that offering a home to moderate socialists is somehow objetionable; needless to say, we do not share that opinion. More importantly, the SBT chose to ignore that our paper indicated, in the very same sentence, that the RD also offers a home to social democrats and social liberals. Selective reporting at its finest, and at its most blatantly obvious.
The SBT goes on to argue that the RD turned its back on a centrist coalition and thus forced the FR to go looking for alternative partners, suggesting later on that the RD "instead of negotiating to create a vibrant center to Eutopian politics, [...] made the first move, and moved left." This would be hilarious if it wasn't so transparently false. In fact, the FR started making advances to other parties well before the RD did so (not the finest hour of current RD-leader Melanchthon, one might add). We note that, lo and behold, the FR chose not to approach the RD, while it did in fact offer cooperation to the ERP - a party that, as pointed out before, closely resembles the RD.
The SBT also claims that the FR is close to concluding an alliance with the ERP. At best, this is a somewhat rash statement. In actual fact, the ERP itself has made it very clear that this is not the case, and has explicitly asked the FR to refrain from making claims of that nature. For a paper that purports to report the truth, the SBT seems to have suprisingly little acquaintance with the concept.
The SBT also suggests that the Public Interest was inexact in claiming that the FR described the Royalistic Party as "ultra-leftist." We believe the SBT's verbal casuistry is most effectively debunked by the FR's communication with the RP itself, which is a matter of public record. According to the FR, "Other than your [i.e., the RP's] desire to reinstate the Monarchy [...] your platform looks ultra-leftist. I doubt you'd find sympathy for the Monarchy among the left wingers, but the rest of your platform alienates those of us who might support your central tenet." The STB is correct that there is a "painful inexactitude" in this case; we are happy to report that it isn't ours.
The SBT further claims that our paper described the communication between the FR and RP as "fearmongering." In fact, we did no such thing, and we invite the STB-editors to read our article more carefully. What we *did* refer to as fearmongering was the FR's hyperbolic rhetoric, based on an obvious tendency to think in black and white and a concern with ideology rather than reality.
A lack of concern with reality also characterizes some of the SBT's own observations. Thus, it contends that the RD "is willing to align itself with parties [i.e., the ECL] willing to destroy the economy to make their case." First of all, the claim that the ECL's policies would destroy Eutopia's economy is empty rhetoric, nothing more, nothing less. Secondly, since the SBT is concerned with exactitude, we are sure they'll thank us for pointing out that the RD has so far not "aligned" itself with any other party and/or organization. Of course, it will likely do so in the future, and the Public Interest will be happy to report on things as they develop.
Finally, the SBT claims that the Public Interest has "condemned" the FR for endorsing the Corporate Alliance, stating that "Apparently the RD thinks that every party that one dialogues with is one of perfect agreement?" At this point, we are not surprised by the SBT's apparent inability to distinguish between the RD (which has not taken a position on the CA) and our paper. It may be helpful to remember that one is a party, and the other a magazine. A magazine that, moreover, has not "condemned" the FR for endorsing the CA, but simply pointed out that the obvious contrast between the FR's response to the ECL and the CA is a worrisome sign - worrisome, that is, for anybody who is interested in the welfare of the working class.
In sum, we hope that the SBT will, in future, pay less attention to any imaginary "Voices," and more attention to the concepts it claims to be defending - truth and exactitude. As far as the Public Interest is concerned, we have no interest in spinning out this debate with the SBT; we are confident that readers will be able to arrive at their own conclusions in the matter. Instead, we wish the SBT best of luck for the future, and return our attention to the political scene.
- mel
). It appears Eutopian democracy is alive and well!
