Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
The Passion of Henry Allen
Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON -- The so-called "newsroom brawl" between an editor and a
writer at The Washington Post recently has been a fine distraction for
the health-care-weary.
The two men apparently came to blows over, of all things, words. Not ad hominems necessarily, or at least not exclusively, but words as in the quality of writing. So began the argument that led to a punch being thrown.
Be still my fibrillating heart.
The pugilist was one Henry Allen, a renowned writer and an editor with the Style section. On the other end of Allen's fist was Style writer Manuel Roig-Franzia, co-author of a "charticle" (an appetizer-sized combination of words, images and graphics) that Allen called the second-worst story he'd seen in 43 years.
Roig-Franzia responded by suggesting that Allen not be such a "(bleep)." Allen, 68 and just a few weeks from retirement, lunged. Bystanders to the excitement, including Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, intervened -- and the Earth continued to spin on its axis in the customary fashion.
No harm, no foul, right? Not quite.
Much harrumphing has ensued. Opinions veer between "We can't have that sort of thing" to "Was that great, or what?" Moi? I feel like Miss Rosie Sayer in "The African Queen," reluctantly weak-kneed in the presence of the rough-hewn Charlie Allnut.
In an online chat, the Post's Gene Weingarten cheered the passion, long missing from America's bean-counter newsrooms. Reporters of a certain age remember when newsrooms bristled with heat amid the search for light. Fights may have been infrequent, but tempers often flared as deadlines loomed and reporters sweated over just the right word, usually under the baleful eye of an editor whose own deadline was bearing down.
The newsroom wasn't just a workplace. It was a rendezvous point for renegades from the ordered life who, nevertheless, were compelled to perform under fire. To create on demand is a contradictory skill. To do so artfully is not usually a function of charm.
Thus, David Von Drehle, a former Post editor and writer (now at Time), lamented the decision that Allen not return to the building, calling him "the most dazzling and original talent I've seen in 30-plus years in the journalism business."
"Instead of being banned from the building, Henry should have a statue in the lobby," he told the Washington City Paper.
While some staffers have been placing bets on what might have been the worst story ever to cross Allen's desk, others have tried to discover the deeper meaning of the fracas. Among the theories advanced is that Allen was reacting to New Media's advancing siege.
"What we are watching is a whole profession losing its swagger," wrote Natalie Hopkinson on The Root, a Web site hosted by the Post.
Piffle.
Now, there's a word unlikely to have tumbled from the fingertips of Henry Allen. Or those of Matt Labash, an ardent admirer of Allen's and, himself, the sort of muscular writer who fashions sentences you want to read aloud. The thought that this smallish eruption portends or remarks on the end of journalism-as-we-know-it was enough to prompt Labash to an e-mail rant, which more or less ranks with having Bruce Springsteen call you up to sing "Happy Birthday."
"He's the best writer by a factor of five that the Style section's ever seen," wrote Labash. "The problem with newspapers is there was never enough Henry Allens to go around, which the Internet only serves to prove daily."
Maybe, as with all things lately, we're overanalyzing what amounted to a scuffle between two men under the influence of testosterone. Alex Jones, longtime media critic and head of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, distilled the event to its plainer truth:
"Maybe it's because I'm from the South, but if you call me a '(bleep),' I'm going to take a shot at you unless I know I'll get the crap kicked out of me ... and maybe even then."
Which is to say that Allen was defending his honor, an act so unfamiliar in today's emasculated newsrooms that we hardly recognize it. No one would insist that fisticuffs are an appropriate route to resolution (harrumph, harrumph), but it is sublimely reassuring that such a passion for wordsmithing survives in a twittering, talking-head world.
With appropriate concern for Roig-Franzia's own bruised honor, it is still possible to cheer Allen's spirit. As Miss Rosie might put it: "Mr. Allen, you're the bravest man that ever lived. You're just overdue, that's all."
========
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kathleenparker(at)washpost.com
Copyright 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 11/08/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Thank you for your input.
Posted Comments:
11-10-2009 00:18
JCE wrote:
Mykael One would have to have honor, and even know what it was to have it, to defend it. Not something I see you demonstrating. There is name calling to provoke someone into getting angry enough to either attack, or to make a fool of themselves, or to be easier to attack. But to attack for pleasure, and of habit, and to attack a lady who conducts herself like one, makes one seem the bigger fool. In attacking Catharyne, you showed no honor, had none to defend, so you must be of the modern breed, those without honor, those who attack the seemingly helpless and innocent for pure sadistic pleasure. This is in keeping with your normal behavior and comments. While I don't agree with everything that Catharyne posts, this one was a very well written and well thought out post. With no meanness or attack. You could learn from it, if you are still capable of learning.
old cowboy One must still stand up for what one believes, and calling a spade a spade is fine. Sometimes and idiot is just an idiot, and must be recognized as one, and called one when they persist.
I would far rather disagree with one like Catharyne who remains respectful at all times, yet stands her ground, than agree with those who are by nature uncivil and mean natured.
old cowboy One must still stand up for what one believes, and calling a spade a spade is fine. Sometimes and idiot is just an idiot, and must be recognized as one, and called one when they persist.
I would far rather disagree with one like Catharyne who remains respectful at all times, yet stands her ground, than agree with those who are by nature uncivil and mean natured.
11-08-2009 20:57
old cowboy wrote:
to Mykael
When one reduces himself to namecalling he shows his true spirit and I am not referring to the original article.
CS and I have disagreed at times but I think we kept it civil.
To me when someone resorts to name calling and gender inferences he is showing the coward he really is and should be ignored.
I guess I am not following my own suggestion in this post but I hope you read it.
I still think the original article was fluff.
CS and I have disagreed at times but I think we kept it civil.
To me when someone resorts to name calling and gender inferences he is showing the coward he really is and should be ignored.
I guess I am not following my own suggestion in this post but I hope you read it.
I still think the original article was fluff.
11-08-2009 18:37
Mykael wrote:
Catharyne Stauffer
. . . you silly, superficial pacifist twit . . .
This country was created and NURTURED by men AND women who were willing to fight for their personal honor and principles . . . even SOMETIMES against other AMERICANS who insulted or threatened them. There was a time when virtually every adult American possessed the cajones necessary to actually TRY to DEFEND themselves and their nation. "We" have gone from a nation of hardy pioneers, innovators and backwoods warriors to a nation of petulant whiners and limp-wristed parasites who suck at the trough of the truly productive taxpayers who are forced, by a corrupt Congress, to maintain the wasteful nanny-state.
If it were not for those who were willing to defend the honor of YOUR ancestors, as well as themselves, you and your female ancestors would likely have lived as handmaidens to a British Lord, or be slaves in a Barbary pirate's harem.
If you can't say anything that has a rational relationship to the REAL world, then at least DO something useful . . . go back to knitting.
P.S. After you rant and rave at my comments . . . have a nice day.
This country was created and NURTURED by men AND women who were willing to fight for their personal honor and principles . . . even SOMETIMES against other AMERICANS who insulted or threatened them. There was a time when virtually every adult American possessed the cajones necessary to actually TRY to DEFEND themselves and their nation. "We" have gone from a nation of hardy pioneers, innovators and backwoods warriors to a nation of petulant whiners and limp-wristed parasites who suck at the trough of the truly productive taxpayers who are forced, by a corrupt Congress, to maintain the wasteful nanny-state.
If it were not for those who were willing to defend the honor of YOUR ancestors, as well as themselves, you and your female ancestors would likely have lived as handmaidens to a British Lord, or be slaves in a Barbary pirate's harem.
If you can't say anything that has a rational relationship to the REAL world, then at least DO something useful . . . go back to knitting.
P.S. After you rant and rave at my comments . . . have a nice day.
11-08-2009 10:49
old cowboy wrote:
A piece of fluff
In my opinion this article about a spat between two people in a Style room of a newspaper has little to do with politics and absolutely no relevance to most people.
11-08-2009 10:36
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
To Kathleen Parker , When one has lost a battle of words and resorts to physical violence not only has their point been lost along with their self control but they have damaged their own cause .
If we for one minute believe ourselves to be a civilized society we would in turn not give positive re-enforcement for such negative behavior but I see from this article you have written you have also fallen victim to this new push for inconsistencies and pressures of what truly is right from wrong .
Your attempt at blurring these lines is in part a major problem within our society. When people feel that they are entitled to behave in a negative manner regardless of the situation, it is a blow to our moral and ethical code . Our prisons are filled with those that felt they were entitled to commit acts of violence and other crimes .
I know you to be a very intelligent lady and so I pray that you think about this issue some more :)
If we for one minute believe ourselves to be a civilized society we would in turn not give positive re-enforcement for such negative behavior but I see from this article you have written you have also fallen victim to this new push for inconsistencies and pressures of what truly is right from wrong .
Your attempt at blurring these lines is in part a major problem within our society. When people feel that they are entitled to behave in a negative manner regardless of the situation, it is a blow to our moral and ethical code . Our prisons are filled with those that felt they were entitled to commit acts of violence and other crimes .
I know you to be a very intelligent lady and so I pray that you think about this issue some more :)
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Kathleen Parker ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
