The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

Today's Democrat and Chronicle editorial on Kuhl's Brazilian junket is an example of everything that's wrong with the D&C's opinion page.  

Editorials exist to set forth a newspaper's position on an issue of the day.  Taking a position implies that you're on one side or the other of an argument.  Here's an example of a decent editorial from today's New York Daily News.   From the headline to the last paragraph, you know what the News wants:  pay raises for state judges.  To get its point across, the News uses a little corny humor in the headline and first paragraph, and it cites facts that support its case.  When it criticizes politicians, its critique is specific and factual.  

The News' editorial is nothing special, but today's D&C effort makes it look positively Shakespearean. The headline, "Brazil trip makes Kuhl an easy target", seems to indicate that the D&C is criticizing the trip.  But the piece is so full of takebacks and qualifications that it's impossible to discern whether the D&C thinks that the trip was a good idea or a bad one.  For example:

Learning how Brazil used ethanol to replace 40 percent of its gasoline supply has merit. Remember, Brazil declared itself independent of Mideast oil in 2005.

Whether Kuhl actually needed to go to Brazil, where sugar cane is used to make ethanol, is quite another story. After all, sugar cane can't be grown in New York state.

So which is it, guys?  Is a trip to Brazil relevant or not?   If you don't have an opinion on the core justification for the trip, why did you write about it in the first place?

Where the News uses facts to support its arguments, the D&C inserts them at random.  For example, it points out that a new ethanol plant is opening in Orleans county, and draws this non-conclusion:

While there is a huge difference between corn and sugar cane, there is something to be said for gaining knowledge about ethanol of all varieties.

There might be something to be said, but the D&C doesn't say it.  Meaningless catchphrases like "there is something to be said" are no substitutes for taking a stand.  Even worse is "this page prefers", which is the smug newspaper equivalent of the royal "We".

The only thing that's clear from the D&C's editorial is that they think there's something distasteful about the whole discussion.  The term "sniping" is used twice, which implies that the story is only on the editorial page because Massa keeps bringing it up.  This ignores the fact that the Washington Post was there first, and it's also a red herring.  Massa's reaction has no bearing on whether Kuhl's trip was worthwhile.  But the D&C is so afraid of appearing to criticize Kuhl that they have to criticize Massa to balance things out. 

As the old-timers used to say, "a good editorial is like a ladies' dress, long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to be interesting."   Today's D&C effort wouldn't even make Project Runway.