CP posted his hopes that Capital columnist and cartoonist Eric Smith would take the early retirement plan the paper was offering to long-time employees. He did. Hooray! Not necessarily for Smith leaving, but in the hope that a more sophisticated, considerate and accountable columnist and cartoonist will replace him. We can only hope. For his complete final column, see here: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/11_12-22/COL
If you'd rather spare yourself, CP excerpts the choice parts for your reading pleasure in red italics:
I know that many of you disagreed with my views throughout the years.
Some of you, in fact, have made it plain that you think I'm an ornery, opinionated pinhead, if not a downright dope.
That's putting it mildly, something that you have rarely done. It's not your opinions that are the problem, it's when you deliberately twist and turn and through use of exaggerations or omissions, you attempt to tell your readers only what you want them to know with a callous disregard for any facts, any semblance of truth or anything that will help them understand anything--except that you are as you say, an opinionated pinhead.
I don't blame you.
Whew! That's a load off my shoulders. I don't have to take the blame for Eric being the only one with opinions. Thanks Eric.
But here is where Eric come to admit what CP has been consistently saying for years about his worthless rants:
I have always held that columns are fundamentally different from news stories and feature articles. Columns are not supposed to be fair, balanced or objective. They should be unbalanced, subjective and unsettling as often as possible.
Where to begin? Well, fundamentally yes, they are expressing your opinion or your interpretation or analysis of events and issues that should matter. Usually you wrote about things of little import. When you did, you provided little or no insight. You have now shown without any doubt that you have never understood the difference between a guy on the street ranting and raving versus a seasoned reporter or writer whose voice resonates, who helps us understand the issues around us. I don't mean to suggest every columnist can be a Daniel Schorr or William F. Buckley, a David Broder an Ellen Goodman, a Thomas Friedman or a George Will, or a Richard Cohen. But those writers really understand and provide we the readers with insight, with a well argued point of view. They at least understand that they have a responsibility to their readers. They understand that they are given space--column inches, ink and a salary. They have an obligation to write about things we do not or cannot know about--to make the unfamiliar knowable to us. They have to be accountable--otherwise they are like someone you meet at a bar who is going off about this or that.
Dear Eric, everybody understands a columnist is expected to express his or her opinions. That is not and has never been my issue with your writings. CP wishes you well.
