About ten years ago, when I still worked at The TAB, one of our reporters was writing a story about how a group of political insiders was looking to recruit a candidate to run against then-alderman (and habitual thorn in the side of then-Mayor Cohen) Ken Parker.
To illustrate the story, our art department (yes, The TAB once had an art department!) created an image of Parker with a target over his face. (Get it? They were targeting Parker for the next election.) Ken saw the image, told me he found it very unsettling to see a target on his face, thought his parents would find it unsettling, and persuaded me not to publish it. I’m glad Ken called. I glad we didn’t print it.
I was reminded of that event about two weeks ago when the Newton Village Alliance posted a similar photograph (I won’t publish it here but if you want to see it, here’s a link) on their Newton Forum blog in reference to the Newton Charter Commission’s straw vote to do away with Ward City Councilors as part of creating a smaller City Council.
The Newton Village Alliance published this same photo again this week in its most recent email newsletter under the headline “Local Challenges to Local Democracy.” I figure if I’ve seen this photo twice — and I’m hardly on the Friends of the NVA Christmas Card list — perhaps it has circulated elsewhere too.
The image, of course, is misleading. It suggests that the Charter Commission actually targeted these eight individuals to be removed from the City Council. The truth is, the Charter Commission proposed eliminating eight ward seats, which happen to be occupied by those eight individuals with those targets on their faces.
But that’s not the worst part. As I learned one decade ago, placing a target on someone’s face to illustrate a political point is a bad choice for a metaphor, especially in an age of gun violence. It reflects the type of gutter politics common on the national level but don’t need here. I’m glad we never printed that Ken Parker image in the TAB. I hope the NVA will immediately stop distributing its image too.
I agree. At the very least, I hope NVA contacted each individual with a target on his/her face and asked for permission to put the photo online.
I find the image to be disturbing. It is a terrible reminder of Sara Palin’s targets and events in Arizona.
It’s on the purported kinder and more civil new blog. I have a completely different idea of being kind and civil.
I have just commented on this on newtonforum.org.
Sallee, isn’t that the NVA blog “where residents can share their views, politely, and using their real names”? This does not sound very polite.
Yup…and I have just commented there that: “out of an abundance of caution and genuine politeness, we should find a better illustration for some very excellent arguments that might get lost in the picture controversy!”
The real humor in the picture is the missing Councilor!
NO, NO, NO …it is not an NVA blog…it is set up by Chris Pitts, independently, as an antidote to the often rude and demeaning statements made here that villainize those with differing opinions!
A blog for nice people? Really? Did someone’s feelings get hurt here?
The NVA’s Chris Pitts has just replaced the photo on their blog I’m glad he did. Thanks Chris.
@Sallee: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I will call it a duck.
@Greg: It might turn out to be a swan!
Swans quack?
Oh and also, if it’s not an NVA blog how come the same photo was on their blog and included in their email?
I am not an NVA nember and can’t answerthat question. Newton forum.org may have a copyright claim!
I would have used a red X rather than a target. The target is just more visceral.
The target also gives certain people an excuse to change the subject away from the misguided attempt to gut the village structure and deny ward voters tangible direct self determination.
One positive outcome of this brouhaha is that it finally got me to take a close look at the Newton Forum which I’ve been meaning to do for sometime now. I read every past article and there isn’t a clunker among them. They were all timely and it’s pretty obvious that a lot of thoughtful and patient preparation went into each of them even if I didn’t always agree with everything being advocated. The best thing is that the authors come from varied backgrounds with vastly different viewpoints and interests that cross the political spectrum. There are articles from some of the City’s staunchest conservatives to people I have worked with on the Newton Bernie Sanders campaign. A very well done to Chris Pitts and everyone else that has helped get the Newton Forum off to a remarkable start.
Bob-Did you think that any of the articles included comments that are disrespectful toward women?
Almost anything anyone says these days could be seen as offensive to at least one person.
Some people say they’re “offended” when they hear ideas they don’t agree with.
Some even use “being offended” as a way to shame someone which is essentially verbal bullying. Too bad, because it reduces the impact of things that are truly offensive when just about everything is viewed through that prism.
If something is truly offensive, the people who call it out, are specific, and provide a rebuttal are the people for whom I have the greatest respect.
@Charlie: I’m having trouble following you. Rather than beating around the bush, please explain what you’re trying to say about this specific situation.
Yes, thanks Greg, for calling this out and doing it in a personal, thoughtful way.
Bob, it’s interesting that party affiliation seems to mean very little when it comes to Newton politics. The authors and commenters on the blog, mostly by invitation, tend to represent a who’s who of NVA in my observation. There’s nothing wrong with that. I agree that are some are very thoughtful well-written pieces, some not so much.
I never understood why people in Newton sometimes conflate party politics with local issues.
There are Democrats in Newton with a wide variety of views on local issues.
Charlie -You know exactly what I’m referring to. It’s time for men to realize that 50% of the people who live in this city do not intend for their thinking to be diminished, or to allow men to belittle them when it’s pointed that what they’ve said is demeaning. Sometimes it’s better to admit a mistake and correct it, as Chris Pitts has so admirably and respectfully done, than to dig one’s heels into the ground.
@Jane what is the offending comment or comments?
I say thank you to Chris for this information about the ward councilors. Voters ought to know exactly who will be affected by this charter revision recommendation. Perhaps 8 councilor seats could be eliminated; but why target 8 specific seats? Why not recommend 8 at large seats and 8 ward only seats? As it stands now, the CC has created an divisive situation among the electorate. I don’t see how this serves the greater good of the village communities.
@Jane
I actually have zero idea what you are referring to. Please be specific so I and others will know.
@Greg
My post was a very straightforward general comment. No hidden message to decode.
Perhaps because I served on the Board of Aldermen with Charlie Shapiro (or perhaps his post was extremely straight-forward ), I understand clearly what he was saying and I didn’t notice anything derogatory about women.
This controversy has intrigued me further about NewtonForum, and I’ll try to track it down and see what all the fuss is about.
Jane…Which article on Newtonforum are you referring to?
@Jane. Perhaps there have been comments on Newton Forum that are insensitive, but I couldn’t find them. I’d like to know what I missed because I’m pretty certain it has to be a small fraction of what has been published there.
My Aunt Minnie used to say, “there are always a few hidden thorns in every fresh bouquet of bright red roses” and I think most of what is published in Newton Forum appears to be quite bright if also provocative.
@Bryan. My point wasn’t that people with differing political philosophies can’t work together on local issues. The fact is they do here in Newton and do so more than a lot of people might think. Today’s Earth Day cleanup at Hemlock Gorge attracted folks with a range of political viewpoints including some that were encouraged to participate by Greg and other folks at the Chamber.
@Bryan again. And i don’t think Chris Pitts intends to have the Forum function as simply an auxiliary to NVA. His focus is a lot wider than that.
I appreciate Chis Pitts removal of the targets and it seems to have generated more people to check out his blog.
I’ve read all of the posts now but not every comment and Jane, I still haven’t a clue.
I did notice that the participants, for the most part, while perhaps not all members of the NVA do share most of their viewpoints. I didn’t find it to be any more polite than Villiage 14, except the comments do all start by applauding the poster. Many of the articles are well worth a read, many are misleading or boring. I did enjoy Sallee’s post on the marathon but came to a different conclusion. I also find Peter Bruce to have a wealth of knowledge to share although I generally disagree with some of his statements and his approach. I do not wish to be impolite but there are some subtle (or not) insinuations that the blog in general supports that convey a conspiracy by the LWVN that I find to be the opposite of being polite.
I will have to say that I enjoy the wide range of opinions expressed on V14 and more than reading comments largely from a cheering section.
has someone claimed responsibility for this picture? Congresswoman Gabby Gifford had a photo with a target on her face posted online by Sarah Palin. A crazy follower then went and shot her and many others. This is not ok.
@Alicia: I would imagine Chris Pitts would know who created it. Or else who ever used on last week’s NVA email blast. If I’m not mistaken at least four of the five NVA steering committee members are Newton Forum bloggers.
As far as I’m concerned, the most important thing is that the image is no longer used.Pitts removed it. It would be nice if someone from the NVA confirmed that they won’t.
@Jane: What comments are you referring to?
I’m asking as someone who does not tolerate disrespect or abuse of women in any way. For example, as a young Newton kid, there were multiple occasions where I was forced into the tough position of having to physically takedown men who were beating my mom. As a law student, I participated in the Battered Women’s Clinic, where I helped prosecute cowardly men who found strength in beating women. And as president of the largest law student organization in the U.S., I showed real leadership by removing from my student government individuals of whom legitimate complaints of sexism and/or bullying were made. (Sadly, even amongst law students, there were too many such issues.)
As Mr. Burke correctly points out, Newton Forum is off to a remarkable start. However, if anyone affiliated with something that I am voluntarily committing my time to is crossing the line in regard to how he or she is treating women, I would like to know as I’m confident that I’ll be able to remedy the situation.
Someone who should know because they were there the day the original photo was taken tells me that Jake Auchincloss was photo-shopped into the “target photo.” If so, whomever made this image invested quite a bit of time making this thing.
Could Alicia Bowman give some specific references to her description of the role a target photograph played in the attack on Representative Gifford and murder of her supporterz? I was unaware of this linkage and thought the shooter had the same level of homicidal anger that motivates most shooters . Where was the target picture of Rep. Gifford published? How do we know that the shooter saw it and was influenced by it?
Brian: Here’s one of many news items.
Brian:
http://gawker.com/5728545/shot-congresswoman-was-in-sarah-palins-crosshairs
I think Alicia got a few of the details wrong, but the sentiment is correct. Always hard to tell if there is a direct connection. But I got to say, I think you are missing the forest for the trees, no?
If someone put a target on my face and published it online, I’d be upset. I don’t care if they were trying to be cute, trying to make a point, trying to be political. It is the type of discourse we shouldn’t be encouraging. Even if Alicia got a detail wrong, discourse matters. Folks who started the forum make a big deal about the level of discourse on their site, and I’m glad they took it down.
As for the Newton Forum, I’ve checked it out occasionally. There are some interesting posts, and it is worth a read. The comments are definitely an echo chamber in a way this blog isn’t, and while I understand it is not an NVA blog, it is certainly filled with most if not all of the NVA players. The comments are a bit boring since you rarely see a back and forth between folks with disagreement. Like I said, it is a bit of an echo chamber. But the initial posts can be quiet good on occasion. No blog is perfect. I tend to read a lot of political blogs and I find it valuable to read ones both conservative and liberal, and in between. If the Engine 6 folks started a blog, I’m sure it would be a similar echo chamber unless they allowed anonymous blogging (which comes with its own issues, as I’m sure the forum’s folks will point out). But if Engine 6 had a blog, I’d read that one too.