<< Back 10/30/02 Too soft, too slanted – too bad By Jeff Minick In the Sunday, Oct. 20, edition of the Asheville Citizen-Times, the paper that bills itself as “the voice of the mountains,” printed an interview with the movie star Robert Redford. Although Redford is known for many wonderful films — I myself am a fan of “The Great Waldo Pepper” and “The Natural” — readers of the Citizen-Times had reason to be both disappointed and vexed by this interview and its accompanying article. To begin, Redford telephoned Robert Gabordi, the executive editor of the Citizen-Times, and asked if Gabordi wished to interview him. Redford had read a Gabordi column in which Gabordi had criticized Republican Elizabeth Dole for refusing to debate Democrat Erskine Bowles. Liking what he read — and also graciously wishing to thank the people of Western North Carolina for their cooperation in his movie-making venture — Redford asked Gabordi to interview him. Such a request is quite unusual, as Gabordi himself tells the reader in the long passage explaining how he finally caught up with Redford. He also tells us that he knew in advance that Redford wanted to offer favorable comments on Gabordi’s editorial and to criticize Dole for refusing the debate with Bowles. In his half-page account of his meeting with Redford, Gabordi tells us much about his style of interviewing celebrities when he writes that “... it became obvious that Redford is a man comfortable with Redford. God bless him. Too few people feel that way about themselves.” God bless him? This benediction is in the news section of the paper. Did the Citizen-Times get religion? And how does Gabordi know that too few people feel comfortable with themselves? I know droves of people who feel “comfortable” with themselves. It is my observation that quite a few of them might benefit by feeling uncomfortable with themselves. Several times Gabordi appears so dazzled by Redford that he writes like a high school sophomore. Here he is describing Redford once again: He has campaigned for candidates who share his beliefs. He is well aware of who Robert Redford is and jokes easily about himself. If who he is causes people to listen to what he believes is common sense public policy on issues that impact the future of the nation and the planet, so be it. Reread that last sentence. That’s not my misprint. That’s the awe-struck, where’s-a-red-pen Gabordi writing about Redford. The interview itself consumed a full page of the Sunday Citizen-Times in the “A” section of the paper. There are 10 pages in the “A” section, which means that Gabordi’s article on meeting Redford, the actual interview, and some uncomplimentary photographs of the actor took 20 percent of the major news section of the paper. This delegation of resources and space occurred at a time when elections were only three weeks away, a sniper was loose and murdering people, and our country was daily staggering towards war. Given these harsh conditions — war, snipers, unemployment — some might argue that the country was in need of some humor, which Gabordi and Redford did in fact supply. Their visit together became a sort of love feast in which they celebrated causes dear to their hearts. Both men agreed, for example, that the development near the Blue Ridge Parkway needed constant monitoring. “I’m something of a developer myself out West in Sundance,” Redford said, “but there is development and there is development.” In other words, there are developers and there is Saint Robert of the Backhoe. Both men also agreed that Senate contenders Dole and Bowles needed to have “a genuine debate.” (When was the last time a political debate in this country was “genuine?” Lincoln-Douglas?). After stating that he wasn’t “... taking a biased position here for either party,” Redford then proceeded with the help of Gabordi’s marshmallow assistance to take a party line, at least in favoring a Dole–Bowles debate and in opposing any Congressional debate before the elections regarding war with Iraq. To paraphrase Redford, I guess there are debates and then there are debates. In the interview Redford claims that “I would not dare speak about local politics,” but he then repeatedly tells Gabordi that Western North Carolinians deserve better than what they’re getting in terms of the debate. Although some commentators believe that voters generally get precisely what they deserve — bright and alert voters get good candidates, dullards produce dullards — this consideration seems never to enter Redford’s mind. With the help of Gabordi, he is here to rouse us from our slumber, to save us from ourselves. Thinking aloud often results in dim thoughts and tangled speech. By thinking aloud in this interview, Redford makes even the foggy oratory of a George Bush appear scintillating and precise. The following statement is typical of Redford’s entire interview: “If this (the possible war on Iraq) is such a big issue, such a major issue, why now, just before an election, are we being jammed as a population? To me, it’s pretty clear, and I don’t even want to think, it’s too puzzling for me. I don’t want to think what the negative would be if this is about election-year politics. And we’re playing with something so huge that the public has every right to know more about. “To me, it’s pretty clear, and ... it’s too puzzling for me.” What does Redford mean by such a statement? How can something be both “pretty clear” and “too puzzling?” We’ll never know because Gabordi never asks. His pitches float across the plate, soft as silk and big as watermelons, and Redford just hits away. After Redford makes the above statement, asking why the Congress is being forced to vote on war with Iraq before the elections, thereby making its members actually commit themselves to a stand, Gabordi comments: “Yeah, but you know they voted now because of the election.” The complaint here, of course, is that Republicans forced the vote so that Democrats opposed to the war would be exposed. Yet it is Gabordi and Redford who wax great about value of disclosure and debate. Other than Gabordi’s sloppy writing and Redford’s sloppy thinking, readers should object to this piece on several grounds. First, both the amount of space given to the story and the placement of the story in the news section rather than in family entertainment are inappropriate. It’s an election year. It wasn’t a slow news day. If Gabordi and Redford are, as they keep telling the reader, so concerned about getting information to the American people, why not fill these two pages with information about the coming elections, with solid knowledge about the issues? A second objection to this piece is the tone. Despite his protestations, Redford is clearly taking political sides. There is nothing wrong with taking sides, but Gabordi, who is clearly in Redford’s camp, comes across as an amateur in failing to ask Redford why precisely he feels himself qualified to comment on the North Carolina elections. Finally, there is the baloney about “what the people want” and how Gabordi and Redford intend to help them get it. Who are the people? Do all the people want the same thing? What do Redford and Gabordi know about the people of Western North Carolina? Redford was here for a few weeks. Is he an expert? Who are Redford and Gabordi to speak for the people? How does anyone know what the people want? Gabordi and Redford are right about one thing. Voters do deserve more. They deserve a paper that doesn’t go limp as spaghetti in the presence of a movie star. They deserve integrity in their newspapers. They deserve news that sticks to facts and data, with opinion pieces being reserved for the editorial page. Mostly, voters deserve a newspaper that presents solid information about such vital issues as war, terrorism, unemployment, taxes, and business. On Oct. 20, they didn’t find that information in the Citizen-Times. (Jeff Minick is a teacher and writer who lives in Waynesville. He can be reached at saintsbookco@aol.com)