I have always understood that the goals of a newspaper in its editorial function are to lead, to elevate and to enlighten. In pursuit of these purposes, humor can be a powerful tool. However, when the search for humor becomes petty and hateful, it undermines the higher purpose of editorial journalism. The victim of the sarcasm becomes the integrity of the newspaper. Which brings us to Steve Rosenbloom’s column.
I cannot conceive why a newspaper of the Tribune’s stature would allow such an insecure class clown to have such a prominent location. His approach is essentially that anything, no matter how demeaning or unfair, can be said in search of a laugh. However, even a class clown must face the discipline of his teacher when his antics become pointedly directed at another student. Why have your editors abdicated their supervisory role?
It seems obvious that Steve’s unique brand of “opinion” would not be appropriate on the editorial page or in a review of the arts or in any other section of the paper. But for some reason the editors have chosen to selectively apply their journalistic ethics based on location.
It is not so much that one can disagree with the man since he appears to stand for nothing more than taking shots at people who are quite often in no position to respond. Quite frankly, it’s as gutless as any sucker punch I have ever seen.
