So the guy who hoped for the decapitation of Adam Nagourney’s son in a “Republican war” stopped by today, and a little Googling (how he has come to hate that, I’m sure) turned up his open letter to the NYTimes ombudsman who quoted him.
So let me see if I understand this. Writing as if your email will be published on the front page of the Times has been the understood rule since, oh, 1990 or so. So this is not a great insight on his part:
Letter to Daniel Okrent:
Let me close by pledging that, henceforth, I shall write all of my e-mails as though they will be published in the New York Times.
But in his comment below, he says he turned his Cub Scout pack contact list into pointers to Nagourney and Okrent to spare his Cub Scout parents, rather than publishing an explanation of what happened. So instead he turns his car club website into his platform? And he claims he’s not running, not hiding, but leaves a bogus email address in a non-existent domain. I guess he’s afraid of the same attacks he lobbed at Nagourney . . .
I’m not sure he really understands what’s going on. I hope he uses his 15 minutes wisely . . . .
So what to make of the decision by the Times to name and quote someone, even as odious as the comment was? There are some comments (and commentators) a reasonable person wouldn’t feel any great wish to defend: let the public make of it what it will. One definition of conscience is “that quiet voice which whispers that someone is watching.” What would someone — your mother or beloved — say if you were to wish someone’s son get their head blown off?
I can think of a few emails I have cancelled without sending and a few others where I wish others had done the same.
So did the Times abuse its power? Perhaps. An insult or intemperate statement is hard to expunge, akin to the axiom that “a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.” The fact of the matter is, the Times didn’t pick Schwenk out of the phone book: he said something that provoked a reaction, disproportionate or not. How many of these or even more offensive insults have reporters at the Times received? How much personal abuse is part of the journalist’s job description?
On balance, I think they should have left his name off the column, instead quoting his words as an example of what they were seeing on a regular basis. But that would be showing Schwenk greater consideration than he showed Okrent or Nagourney. Attacking someone’s competence, their grasp of the facts or even reality, all of these are daily occurrences for reporters, but for someone to wish your child be killed is pretty harsh.