It’s been a while since I’ve commented on the Star‘s opinion section, which is one of the worst in the nation for a paper its size. There are virtually no regular local columnists (except for Debbie Kornmiller) to go along with wishy-washy editorials and a slew of syndicated columnists that readers can find myriad other places. If it weren’t for Dave Fitzsimmons, the page would have no redeeming value.

This is sad: Opinion pages are supposed to engage readers and make them think. (And say what you will about Danehy, Tuttle and O’Sullivan: They certainly do these things.) The Star Opinion page … makes you want to take a nap.

However, as regular readers of this blog know, I am—in a warped, wrong sort of way—a semi-fan of “Thorns and Flowers.” It is so bad, it’s … well, not good, but amusing in an odd sort of way. It is, by far, the stupidest, most worthless part of the Star‘s Opinion section (and that is saying *A LOT*). Take today’s, for example, where the Star goes out on the limb to:

— Say nice things about a widow and an exciting football game.

— Criticize—are you ready for it—the failure to communicate.

Oh. My. Lord. How edgy!

I’ve said it before, and I’ve said it again: I hope one day, someone accidentally mislabels “Thorns and Flowers” so everything’s inverted. Can you imagine the Star giving a thorn to a grieving Betty Ford? Or a flower to nurses and doctors who don’t communicate? That would be so awesome.

This article appears in Dec 28, 2006 – Jan 3, 2007.

7 replies on “New Year, Same Old Awful “Thorns and Flowers””

  2. Thorns and Flowers is bad, but Media Watch, which is supposed to be the edgy critic that alternative weeklies were once known for is far worse.
    The Star’s juvenile likes and dislikes is incredibly boring, I’ll give you that.
    But Media Watch is dangerous because it reads like press releases generated by the media conglomerates in town.
    Take this one for example:
    “‘Tucson Sport’ Tackles Adolescent Fitness”

    Gosh really?
    How interestinggggsss..zzzzzz..zzzzz…

    Where’s the “Watch” in that?

  4. Maybe, but it’s boring news. In the end, who really gives a damn?

    Let the radio stations and local rags write their own press releases; there’s no reason to write fluff. Leave the fluff for the daily media.

    Of course, if you insist on going with fluff (this week’s “If You Want To Play The Music You Love, Just Buy A Radio Station” about some guy who retired from radio is another shining example of that) then don’t criticize the Red Star for publishing cheesy inanities that don’t really matter to anybody.

    Or, if you can’t do that, call it something else. “Media Watch” implies you’re actually fulfilling the responsibility of the alternative press and thinking critically.

    I suggest “This Week in Happy Land.”

  5. Well, um, people who care about 1) fitness, 2) local media and 3) magazines would care. Just like people probably care that the Star is suspending reporters for goofing up phone numbers (or at least threatening to), that a Star reporter was detained by border patrol, that Corky Simpson is retiring, etc. And I think it’s pretty damn interesting that a dude with shitloads of money would buy a radio station to play the music he likes.

  6. Sure. You bill the Media Watch as a watchdog, and sadly, that’s what it used to be.
    Now it’s more like a lapdog.

    How much does the Gannett/Lee/Clear Channel behemoth pay you guys to write your crap?

Comments are closed.