Update: BLOG WARS

The latest on the Milwaukee Blog Wars can be found at McBride's Media Matters.

Jessica McBride has asked the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to print a retraction for the comments Eugene Kane made about her yesterday in his column.

In addition, the two exchanged e-mails today.

From Kane:

Jessica

Seriously, did you really think you could take a pretty harsh shot at me and my integrity and expect me not to respond?

You HAVE changed, don’t deny it. That’s your right. Maybe it is a sign of your personal growth.

But understand, you threw the first punch. (Actually, you slammed me before in your blog but I decided to let it slide. Not this time.)

I’m from North Philly; nobody gets a free shot at me without getting smacked right back.

Feel free to post it if you want.

Eugene Kane
Columnist
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Although Kane gave McBride the green light to post his message, I feel like I'm eavesdropping on a personal matter here.

Most likely that's because, to a certain extent, it is a personal matter between the former Journal Sentinel colleagues.

However, when public figures have squabbles, they carry more weight, particurlarly when the personal integrity and character of the individuals are the issue. They each have an interest in maintaining and defending the persona on which they've built their careers.

At least Kane is acknowledging that he gave McBride quite a hit. Unfortunately, he makes no apologies. He justifies his column slamming McBride, conservative talk radio, and conservative bloggers by pointing out that he's from North Philly.

Apparently, in North Philly, unfounded personal attacks are proper etiquette when one has been admonished for questionable behavior.

Kane's "you did it first" line comes off as childish. It makes me wonder whether he would have made a good mentor for "Sam."

As McBride points out, we'll never know if Kane could have been a positive influence in the teen's life. Could he have helped to steer "Sam" off the path that led him to prison?

It's the tragedy of what might have been.

McBride's reply to Kane's e-mail:

Gene,

You made a good point about my not knowing if you've mentored other youths. If you have, good for you, that's a great thing. But I feel like it could have made a real difference to "Sam" had a professional black male taken any interest in him. I was disappointed no one would.

And it bothered me alot that you didn't confine your criticism to me, but rather implied that Sam was destined to fail and not the "type" who could be helped. I don't believe that was the case at all. I do not believe he was a person not worthy of spending time on. You said you were right and point out he ended up in prison almost as if to say, See I was right! I don't think that's fair.

Secondly, you stated in the paper that I said something - or "agreed" to something - that I never did. I never agreed that talk radio were "ridiculous social provocateurs" nor did I ever say or think that...

Those two things are what bother me.

Jessica

I'm glad that Kane and McBride are communicating. She responded honestly, with substance and respect, as opposed to Kane's juvenile approach.

(I hope Dr. Phil doesn't get wind of this and schedule a special hour with Jessica and Eugene, overflowing with his trademark goofy analogies and psychobabble.)

McBride then gives her reaction to the e-mail exchange:

Since Eugene now acknowledges he was just trying to get back at me, will the Journal Sentinel give me my retraction now (I officially requested one from the editors both yesterday and again today)?

A retraction?

No way. I would be amazed. It wouldn't fit the agenda of a liberal outlet like the Journal Sentinel.

I have nothing against Eugene Kane personally. In the newsroom, I did get along with him as a person, as I said before. I don't let politics stand in the way of personal interaction with co-workers. In other words, I have friends who are liberal, conservative, Independent, apolitical, religious, secular, and so on. I don't make a person's politics a litmus test for friendship or co-worker interaction. In person, Eugene is a more thoughtful and open-minded individual than he often seems in print. In person, he's sort of soft-spoken actually and he doesn't run around ranting and raving. But I don't agree with Eugene's politics, generally speaking. I did not then, and I do not now. I tried to avoid getting into such political discussions when I was at the paper. I HAVE changed - from a reporter who was not allowed to express a political point of view because I was a reporter - to an opinion writer who does. So, I am not surprised people think I've changed because I didn't run around spouting political beliefs in the newsroom. Why do I think people wouldn't be surprised if a former reporter started a blog with liberal beliefs?

Here McBride shows her class by giving her readers some insight into the Eugene Kane that Journal Sentinel readers don't get the chance to see.

Given Kane's refusal to back away from his personal attack and his failure to even address the mentoring matter, I think McBride was very kind in her comments. I don't detect any bitterness.

But I do not appreciate Eugene making thousands of readers think we had a conversation that did not exist to get back at me because of my blog. For that, I want a retraction. And, as for Sam, who knows how things would have turned out if a male, particularly a professional black male, had taken some consistent time out of their busy day for him. I guess we will never know. And that's the real tragedy here.

I'm glad McBride isn't backing down from her demand for a retraction. I think the Journal Sentinel owes her one.

If Kane had as much class as McBride, he'd address the issue in a column. Something about personal responsibility and integrity would be nice, or perhaps something about the importance of putting words into action.

There's no question that even if the newspaper won't print a retraction, and Kane doesn't have the decency to clarify the matter in a column, McBride has won this Blog War.

I don't think this was about taking a shot at Kane. It was about holding him accountable.

There's a difference.

"Taking a shot" implies malice. "Holding him accountable" refers to truth and justice; not for McBride's own benefit, but for kids like "Sam."

When all is said and done, I don't really care about determining the winner of the Blog War.

What matters is that this dispute served to highlight the desperate need for intervention in the lives of a generation of criminals in the making.

One thing is indisputable: "Sam" was the loser in all of this.

Sadly, there are so many others in Milwaukee and inner cities around the country likely to make similar poor decisions and follow in "Sam's" footsteps.

The relevant question is: Who cares enough to take the time to save them?