Newton City Councilor Brenda Noel had a must-read column in this week’s TAB this week written in the form of a letter to Newton Republican City Committee Chair and frequent TAB columnist Tom Mountain.
As someone who I hope puts country before party, Tom my friend, this guy is not worth jumping on the sword for. He is destroying your party and taking the country with it. Take the heat for Mitt Romney, Bill Weld, Colin Powell, people that wouldn’t abandon you in a fox hole, but not this fool. I was so proud of the leadership Mayor Giuliani displayed after 9/11, the intelligence and reserve of Condoleezza Rice. There are so many role models and true leaders in the republican party. Not Trump.
…and if you need to be reminded of Mountain’s perspective, here’s one of his recent columns.
The TAB needs to stop publishing stuff by Mountain.
@Mary, Mary Quite Contrary. I have to respectfully disagree. I was going to say this in the tributes pouring in for Andy Levin, but one of the many attributes I admired most about him was his editorial passion that led him to publish letters, op ed pieces and press releases from individuals and organizations across the political spectrum. I would think far less of Andy if he bowed to institutional pressure and stopped publishing stuff by Tom or any other group of individual that might be considered outside the mainstream of thinking here.
I was co-chair of Bernie Sanders Newton presidential campaign and Andy bent over backwards to provide generous coverage to all our activities in Newton, particularly during the early stages when many still thought that Bernie was some kind of fringe candidate. I rather suspect that Andy did not share all or even most of Bernie’s positions, but that didn’t dissuade him from treating our campaign and me personally with what I can only term enthusiastic respect. That’s my definition of an upstanding, fair and professional editor and I certainly can’t say the same for the Boston Globe where most of their writers and editorials tore us down at every opportunity. So, yes, I join many others who will miss Andy’s presence in Newton.
Excellent opinion piece and definitely a must read for all. Councilor Noel’s piece is an exemplary role model for civil discourse and a lesson to us on how to respond to those who continue to support Trump.
Brenda negates Tom Mountain’s hyperbolic attack’s on those of us with open eyes observing the near catastrophic actions Trump continues to take and the belligerent, hateful words(?) Trump continues to spew in a humorous and non condemning manner.
Thank you Councilor Noel.
MMQC, without Tom’s rants we wouldn’t have Brenda’s rebuttal. That’s a slippery slope you’re on. As WAPO says “truth dies in darkness.” Censor one opinion and you censor all.
I typically have two problems with Mountain’s TAB columns
1. He often uses annonymous sources that seem too perfect to be believable.
2. The columns don’t identify him as chair of the City Republican Committee. I don’t believe Tom represents the views of most Newton Republicans but readers should know that he is the person that party has selected to speak for them (and rank and file Newton Republicans should decide if they are comfortable with him representing them).
Bingo, Greg.
Great job Councilor Noel. Mountain certainly has a right to his viewpoints. In my view, most of them are terribly misguided and it pains me to see them week after week in our local paper. Glad Brenda addressed them in a reasonable way.
The Tom Mountain column that Brenda responded to identifies him as chair of the NRCC in the tagline. Also, I did verify the account of the teacher referenced in the column.
Bob, thank you. I actually do agree with Bernie… sometimes. He should have been the Democratic Party’s nominee in a fairer system. And he very well may have won the general election, though that is obviously speculation.
Bob: I’m all for diversity of opinions, but Tom Mountain’s latest piece of hackery merely exemplifies that dictum of propagandists everywhere, that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.
Of course Shawn Fitzgibbons would want him to keep writing. Second only to Setti Warren, Mountain has been Newton’s most outspoken Charlie Baker critic. But how do Newton Republicans feel watching their party chair trash their governor?
Wow. Saving Tom Mountain’s soul is a thing now? I confess I’m torn between being impressed by our can-do spirit here in Newton and a profound sense that we all have better, more important things to do.
Look, all this nonsense about whether or not to “censor” Mountain and Charles Jacobs and their ilk is a straw man argument. That is not what you are talking about when you are talking about responsible community journalism, and the TAB deserves no pats on the back for its approach to them to this point, for two reasons.
The first is involves a matter of degree. It would be one thing if they were simply given a reasonable hearing in the community commons like everyone else. But there is a difference between giving someone their appropriate turn on the soapbox and gifting them with a permanent megaphone. The TAB blew right past any reasonable treatment of Tom and Charles and was well into outright promotion territory. To do that with two of your community’s most divisive voices is an unconscionable abdication of responsibility for a community journalist. The changeover in the TAB’s editor position has rendered moot any speculation about the reasons for this, but the new editor would be well-advised not to repeat this mistake in the future. If Tom wants to pen the occasional dispatch from inside the Fox News bubble, so be it, more power to him. But any more than that is a breach of the public trust.
The second is perhaps even more serious, and that is the level of dishonest and outright falsehoods contained in the statements of these two men. One of the most important roles of a community newspaper is to curate healthy and lively community discussion, including strong opposing viewpoints. But you aren’t entitled to your own facts. Of course some facts can be in dispute, but many are not, and when a news organization allows the abuse of the ones in the second category, it poisons the very commons it is supposed to be nurturing. A community newspaper’s discourse should be about disparate, but responsible voices. There is no entitlement for irresponsible and dishonest voices to have a seat at that table; in this era of social media and other new forms of communication, there are plenty of other opportunities for those other voices to make themselves heard.
Are we paying attention, Newton TAB?
Ralph Ranalli, the former journalist and now self-appointed judge of what is appropriate or not to be published in The TAB. Isn’t it time for you to go back inside your bubble for a long nap Ralph? By the way, do you realize what a condesending, arrogant elitist you sound like?
‘condescending’ … have never been quite comfortable thumb typing. Probably never will be.
You forgot TAB newsroom alumnus (just like you), longtime reader, and concerned Newton resident. I know the truth can sometimes feel like condescension and elitism Andy, but I’m not the one who gave the city’s biggest bullies a virtually unlimited forum. That’s on you.
Ralph,
I totally disagree with you. The editorial page is just that. It’s editorials, people’s own viewpoint and perspectives. If you decide who should be able to write in the section and who can’t, that’s a form of censorship. You are for freedom of speech, no?
Disallowing someone to view the point of view merely because you disagree with it is a form of censorship. The Tab has always had the good sense to allow anyone to pose their opinions….even mine. I always appreciated that.
As far as your concern of bad facts, it’s up to the readers to write in and use their opportunity to voice their opinion and dispute the fake news with the real news. In my opinion, it’s not up to the paper to fact check each editorial, it’s up to the readers. It’s what makes a paper. They know when people are reading the editorial section when Tom writes a column and he gets responses in correcting his facts. As long as he doesn’t yell fire in a movie theatre, when there isn’t one, he should be able to keep writing. It’s just his opinion….lets not make this a huge (mountain) out of a mole hill. (I couldn’t resist).
Ralph, I never intended the TAB opinion pages to be a safe space. I am sorry if you felt bullied.
If there are concerns with the “facts” that are being reported, then you should present counter facts. That is journalism. However, some Newton liberals would rather shut down discussion that they disagree with. Sadly, that is what is considered tolerance in this day and age. We only tokerate those viewpoints we agree with
I find it sad that the city’s Democrat residents are so intolerant to other’s viewpoints. They are such narrow minded, intolerant people that many are still upset about the mayoral general election results, between two candidates that were almost identical in their voting record, party and views of the city, because “their” candidate did not win.
No Ms. Noel, you are wrong. President Donald J. Trump is worth standing with. He has started the long process of righting the ship after 8 years of heading towards disaster.
As for Mr. Mountain, yes he is the chair of the Newton Republican City Committee and I voted for him to head the Newton branch of the party. I am glad that I did and will continue to support Tom as the leader of the Newton Republicans.
For transparency, I am the former 1st vice-chair of the Newton Republican City Committee and worked closely with Tom and was also a candidate for mayor who was defeated in the September preliminary election.
Al, I don’t think the city’s Democrat residents, in general, are like that at all. There are some but, at least based on my experience, they are a small minority of a majority. Many despise this president (and he certainly is a divisive figure) and probably think Tom Mountain is full of it… but they don’t want to shut down discourse.
Tom: “If you decide who should be able to write in the [editorial] section and who can’t, that’s a form of censorship.” — Wait, doesn’t the editor have a say? And can I write any old mendacious crap?
The problem I have with Tom Mountain’s latest piece isn’t that it confronts my liberal bias, it’s that it is objectively full of untruths, for example: “Tax cuts have given a defacto raise to all but the wealthiest.” So it causes me to wonder just what are the criteria for inclusion in the editorial page, and whether the editor does in fact exercise any editorial control, for example to require or even suggest that authors cite evidence for their positions.
Andy Levin, would you care to comment?
Thanks, Andy, for enlightening us with your basic level of understanding of journalism. All I can say is that we’re better off now that you’ve reinvented yourself out of it. Hey, I hear CAMERA is looking for a PR spokesman — they do owe you one, after all.
And the jab about a safe spaces was cute. Well done. Very Hannity of you. On the contrary, though, my issue is more that I have a tendency to reflexively stand up to bullies — and their facilitators. But let’s be honest, your editorial page was most definitely a safe space. A safe space where objective untruths could reside happily side by side with demonstrable facts, safe in the knowledge that you either couldn’t tell the difference, or didn’t care.
Hi Tom,
Requiring you to not lie if you want to write a column in the newspaper isn’t censorship. Sorry. And yes, it is the editor’s job, not the public’s, to ensure that things that are demonstrably untrue don’t get into the newspaper. The New York Times, in fact, fact checks every editorial. It’s right there in their written policies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/op-ed-and-you.html
Best,
Ralph
Hi Rob,
“Tax cuts have given a defacto raise to all but the wealthiest.”
Mea Culpa: I didn’t read his editorial, just defending the fact he has the right to write it. Maybe his point was that the wealthiest don’t need the bump they got from the tax refunds as much as struggling people….in which case, I would agree.
If that’s what Tom Mountain truly feels, then it’s up to the rest of us to debunk it. If he honestly believes it, then there are obviously others who think it, so wouldn’t it be best to publicly prove he’s wrong. If we can’t prove he’s wrong (and he clearly is) then it must be true, no? Afterall, the Koch brothers didn’t invest $400 mill in the last election cycle for the hell of it. They got a nice return on their investment.
Hi Ralph,
While I understand your point, but who determines what a lie is….the PC police? Just draft your own editorial and debunk his nonsense, that’s all I’m saying. If the city can’t have a political conversation (and the Tab and Village14 are great vehicles to have that conversation) then how do we expect countries or political parties to have those open discussions. How can we expect to talk to one another as opposed to talking through one another? (and I know that’s not what your suggesting, but it is a slippery slope).
Back in the mid/late ’80s, the Middlesex News (now the MetroWest Daily News) revamped their op-ed page to include a “vox populi” section. In addition to the standard editorials, letters to the editor and syndicated or staff-written columns, there was a collection of transcriptions from a “hotline” where you could leave a comment, and “guest op-eds” submitted by readers. I’m sure the News wasn’t the only newspaper to adopt the format, but it was certainly a radical departure from the norm at the time — to my knowledge, they were the only paper in the Boston area to do this.
I heard through the grapevine that some News staffers referred to this format as the “slop-ed pages,” because invariably the transcribed comments in particular and the guest columns contained some unpolished language, clumsy syntax, etc., that contrasted sharply with the professional writing. The other problem was if a commenter or guest columnist asserted or implied something that was unproven or an out-and-out falsehood — my memory’s a bit hazy, but I seem to recall the News got upbraided at least a few times for this; theoretically, an editor should have caught any red flags in the guest columns, but obviously some things can fall through the cracks.
But one aspect of the guest op-eds I found troubling was not so much the quality of the opinion presented but the way it was expressed. There was one person whose pieces the News saw fit to present pretty regularly, whom I guess they held up as the “just-plain-folk,” anti-liberal/progressive voice. The vitriol she expressed toward those whose views ran counter to hers was actually disturbing — for instance, she seemed to have a thing about men with finely trimmed beards because they apparently looked effeminate and therefore were an abomination in the context of conventional gender/sex roles, etc.
This is *not* a knock against the right to hold and express anti-liberal/progressive views; it’s just that the way the writer did so tended to make her views seem not only uninformed but unreasonable. I would have felt much the same way if she had written that men with buzz cuts are all prone to psychopathic behavior.
I mention all this because that’s what the argument about Tom Mountain’s columns really seems to boil down to. Letters to the editor express opinions, sure, but a column has a certain amount of gravitas — it suggests that the newspaper believes that the writer has creditable things to say and can express them creditably. And as a reader, I tend to look at an op-ed column for intelligently and well-reasoned elucidation, elaboration and perspective on whatever the subject matter is — even if it goes against my understanding or belief. I’m not going to offer an assessment one way or another as to whether Tom Mountain meets that threshold, but rather suggest it be the standard to which any and all columnists should be held — by us readers and by the newspaper itself.
Hi Tom,
I guess the real problem I have with Tom Mountain’s piece — apart from the citing of hearsay, the projection, and the untruths — was the lack of editorial oversight. There may be a nugget of truth in what he says, but he comes across like a Russian troll, minus the grammar errors.
Were Mountain’s piece simply a’ letter’, it would only be his expression of his own, personal opinion, regardless of whether anybody else finds it credible. But the Tab published it as a ‘column’, which to me means it granted Mountain’s statements credence beyond that extended to merely an expression of personal opinion. In that sense, I think both the Tab and Mountain share responsibility for its content.
@Greg. I would be very happy to never, ever again see a column by Tom Mountain published in the TAB or any other paper. His views are offensive and often racist. In no way whatsoever would I ever feel his views should be promoted because of some perceived benefit to the Newton Democratic Party. He should go away even if he says bad things about Charlie Baker. I have told this to Tom directly. There’s reasonable discourse and debate on issues between people and that’s fine. And then there’s Tom who walks right up to, and often crosses, the line of hate speech. He’s done it in the newspaper and in front of the City Council during hearings many times. People give him a pass because he’s pleasant in person. Also he’s a white guy. Sure, he’s entitled to his opinions. And thanks for the nice demeanor. Our community should still soundly reject his views.
Hi Rob, I totally agree.
Hi Shawn, since you are the leader of the dems in Newton and Tom is the leader of the Repubs the two of you should write about particular issues and the reader can see the contrast side by side (local and national issues). That would be entertaining.
Tom,
“Who determines what a lie is?” Seriously? In many cases it’s news editors and reporters. It has been for hundreds of years in America. And no, it’s not the “PC police,” whatever that is. And if your point is that there is simply no way to tell whether something is true or not true, that truths and untruths have equal value, then there’s no point in having this conversation – or any conversation for that matter – with you. There is no such thing as actual public discourse in the world you describe.
@Shawn Another excellent liberal tactic to shut down discussion – you call your apponent a racist and everything they say is “hate speech”. Unfortunately, in many cases in Newton “hate speech” is any speech that doesn’t you don’t agree with. By the way, I’m a “white guy” too, so you can assume I’m just a racist and ignore me.
IM, one of the far right conservatives’ tactics to cut off dialog is to take comments from someone who disagrees with them and present an expanded, unintended version of them. Such as changing Shawn’s comment that Mountain presents a “sometimes racist” view to “calling your opponent racist” and “often crosses the line into hate speech” to “everything they say is hate speech.”
An actual discussion or debate has those with differing opinions responding to what was said not inflating them to to shut it down.
@MB sometimes racist? Is that like being a little pregnant? Where I grew up, not Newton, there weren’t different degrees of racism. I knew people who were truly racist and had no problem calling them out, but I would never use it as a weapon against those I disagree with. And please explain the intended version of the”he’s a white guy” comment. I can’t even begin to understand the context of that one…but according to you I’m a far right conservative so I may not be able to understand the nuance.