I’ve been saying this for a while. I even shared my thoughts directly with the editor and publisher of the Chronicle in direct emails previously. Apparently, my concerns fell on deaf ears.
The issue is that The Chronicle’s commentary section is not balanced.
Unfortunately, the section acts as an amplifier, a megaphone for one side, while giving breadcrumbs to the other. The latest piece from Sean Swope on “neo-Confederate blue states” once again proves the point.
I encourage readers to step back and read that commentary. The language is loaded, designed to inflame, not inform. Comparing progressive state policies to the Confederacy is absurd on its face. His commentary is not history or analysis. It is spin, a recycled Fox News talking point dressed up as local commentary.
The Chronicle’s commentary section reflects the values the paper chooses to promote, and this piece lays it bare.
I once considered myself independent, socially liberal, fiscally conservative and open to reason and debate. Like many, I want strong arguments with substance. What I do not want are strawmen, name-calling and propaganda. The Chronicle’s commentary section serves up too much of the latter.
Swope’s op-eds are the clearest example. His “opinions” are consistently amplified far beyond his role as commissioner, often reinforced by quick-turn news stories and radio appearances. The recent commentary on blue states runs in the same lane: provocation presented as serious thought.
Opposing views are not the problem. I welcome them. For years, I voted in the middle and weighed arguments from both sides. The problem with The Chronicle is they allow disingenuous writing passed off as commentary. A newspaper should hold itself to a higher standard. The Chronicle instead chooses to publish right-wing narratives with little grounding, and the publisher’s own notes and radio appearances only confirm the alignment.
I know how the media business works. I worked in it. Negativity sells. Political fights sell. In my past role in the TV news industry, I regularly worked with media executives who would say, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Great for ratings and ad revenue, destructive for communities.
The Chronicle appears to be following that model: stoke division, ride outrage, and monetize it. Do not call that balance. Do not call that journalism.
So, the question for The Chronicle remains: what kind of paper do you want to be? A community newspaper that reflects the breadth of voices in this county, or a clearinghouse for national right-wing talking points? The commentary section answers that question already.
The Chronicle has a choice. Continue amplifying division, or step back, demand more from your contributors, and commit to substance. Only one of those paths resembles journalism.
Matt Evans
Centralia
