A much-awarded NC journalist emails re the N&R's belated intro to Amendment One:

The paper's endorsement appears on the front page today, pretending to be a Q&A. Giving Baptist-owned Campbell Law the final (dismissive) word over UNC Law's study isn't even a thin disguise. Except for failing to mention Campbell's Baptist affiliation. Saul must be pleased.

Reader H, on the same article:

How disingenuous  to compare Billy Graham and Chelsea Clinton! How about Graham or fundamentalist Christians, in general, versus the many other notable individuals in the faith community or faith based organizations, in general, who have come out against the amendment? 

It is an odd formulation. A familiar one, too, if you read Romenesko's withering piece about the N&R yesterday. In the latter context, it made sense as a way of saying "everybody is talking about this." On the front page of the paper, it's an odd comparison to have, um, borrowed.

Comments

[Spag]

So giving the UNC law "study" and it's unfocused, far-fetched analysis the "final word" would have been more fair? Or is there only one "right" answer.

The piece clearly explains that there are two sides to the debate. I realize that doesn't sit well with Ed and some others.

The other day, Ed ran a quote from a Baptist preacher against A1. Further, a law professor from Baptist Campbell signed on to a statement against A1. Did the N&R fail to disclose the liberal politics of Eichner, et al?

Did Ed fail to mention that the "much awarded NC journalist" is married to the anti-A1 activist Laurelynn Dossett? I suppose that "affiliation" doesn't color his viewpoint, does it? Not exactly the credible source to rely on for a take on objectivity regarding this subject.

Regardless, the Campbell response is based on a legal analysis and makes no mention of religion. Conversely, the UNC white paper is short on legal analysis in favor of alarmist arguments that have been discredited everywhere else they were tried.

I know you are upset that there was a pushback to the propaganda campaign and people might actually be casting their votes based on how they feel about the actual issue involved instead of the red herrings and wild rabbits. But only in liberal land could a piece that presents a brief description of both viewpoints on those ancillary issues be considered an endorsement of one side. How biased of them.

I suspect that most conservatives are shocked that the N&R actually offered both sides instead of rabidly siding with those opposed to A1.

Whining about who got the "last word"? How desperate.

Sometimes that speaking "truth to power" works in ways you might wish they didn't.

[sean coon]

Aside from not knowing how the hell spag deduced who emailed ed, I have to agree that this article seems pretty balanced to me, if not more informative about the ills of the amendment than I've read in any other newspaper. If this is the substitution for a staff editorial, yes, it's bogus. Otherwise, what exactly is the problem?

[Ed Cone]

I didn't identify Justin because he wrote me a personal email. Since then he has made much the same point in public at Romenesko, where several former N&R staffers have voiced their dismay at the paper's editorial policy.

I thought the Chelsea Clinton repeat was not good on a couple of levels. The other big problem I had with the piece was that it comes so late in the game.

[sean coon]

Chelsea = Billy doesn't pass the sniff test on some levels, but I don't think Billy followers would be convinced by substituting even Jefferson in Chelsea's place. And yes, it did come late, but I'd expect no less from the n&r on any number of issues over the years.

As far as Laurelyn being an "activist," she and I actually had a chuckle over it the other day. I guess a loving mom and wife who cares about her community and has the voice of an angel can't help it with an issue such as this.

[Roch]

How about that it gave legitimacy to a representative of a PAC who publicly lied to Greensboro City Council?

[justcorbly]

How can an opinion about a proposed constitutional amendment be based on legal arguments? What higher authority did Campbell turn to? The U.S. Constitution doesn't bother itself with worrying about who people live with.