Chuck Stone…The Reader's Advocate?

Now that Election Day in St. Louis has passed, a brutal, long-smoldering feud between incumbent mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. and chief challenger Clarence Harmon draws to a temporary close. However, over these past couple of months, there developed a second battle. I'm speaking of the unprecedented animosity, which was created between the people of St. Louis and a particular newspaper writer, one Chuck Stone.

The first thing I noticed about Stone, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's "readers' advocate" brought in at the first of this year, is that he's a snob. Or, at least, he thinks an awful lot of himself. The second sentence in his January 5th column indicates as much:

"Do you know why this job is so important?"

He may as well have written, "Do you know why I am so important?"

Now I may have said a lot of things and thought a lot of things, but I have never considered myself to be so important; certainly not in the eyes of the general public. So it won't hurt my ego to amend myself so early in this commentary by saying that I could be wrong; Chuck Stone may not be a snob. Most snobs I know may be opinionated bastards, but each has had the education necessary for expressing him or herself with proper use of the English Language. Obviously, Stone has not as evidenced by his use of the slang terms "dis," "dissed," and "dissing.” Not one of these three terms is found in the 12-volume edition of the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.

Stone's stated number one reason for taking the job is his relationship with Post-Dispatch editor, Cole Campbell. My guess is that this is the only reason he has the job. (I'm not sure what kind of dirt Stone could have on Campbell to warrant such a cushy [not to mention undeserving] seat, but I’d sure as hell like to find out.)

Chuck Stone was, according to his introduction from the editors of the Post-Dispatch in an early column, hired to "focus on the St. Louis mayoral election." Indeed, he touched on many topics, but the election was rarely one of them. In the first sentence of one column, Stone complained that "the last thing readers of this column had in mind last Sunday was an election." Well, if the columnist doesn't bother discussing the election - which he has rarely done - why should the readers? On separate occasions, he viewed his job as a seat from which (1) to explain various news stories which run in the paper for presumed thick-headed readers or (2) to explain various comments from readers or (3) to report to the rest of us what other readers are thinking. In some instances, he merely used the readers as editors. What he did not do was cover the race for mayor on a consistent basis. His earliest columns were virtually void of the subject. (At one point, he reported from Huntsville, Alabama . . . . was a candidate there on vacation?) When he finally did get around to giving substantial attention to the race, he mocked it by once mentioning Candidate Bill Haas in a particular column, but ignoring co-front-runner Clarence Harmon. This is a bad move when you're hired to analyze the race for The Rest Of Us. Though I must give credit when it's due. At another point in his indistinguishable stay, he did raise one of the much-discussed issues when he seemed to ask, "how much (has) the racial factor . . . (been) turning off St. Louisans from the mayoral campaign?" Wasn’t Stone supposed to be answering that question?

While this is just one thing he failed to do, I must say that Chuck Stone possesses an elaborate style when doing nothing. The fancy language, including the literary quotes, the Latin phrases and the newsroom slang are sharp and, when used by the right people to address the right audience, can have an impact. But failing at simple marketing (learning your audience), Stone forgot that he was speaking to we common folks, not a group of Shakespearean historians. In all of his years, Chuck Stone has yet to learn that simple language is not necessarily the product of a simple mind. I was reminded of this one night last fall as I stood alone in the brisk October air and read the brief but powerful - and effective - Gettysburg Address off the giant limestone walls which line the interior of the Lincoln Memorial. In the end, Abraham Lincoln made his point and it may have saved the union. Meanwhile, Chuck Stone never made a point. By mid-February, it seemed that even Post-Dispatch editor Cole Campbell recognized the futility of Stone's efforts to produce anything containing even a semblance of sense. In the February 16th edition of the paper, Campbell felt compelled to introduce to us Sylvester Brown Jr., who would also – hopefully – be kicking in his two cents on the mayoral race.

* * * * *

I've waited the duration of the mayoral contest before making a comment, figuring to give Stone a chance to . . . . to just do his job. (Which, by the way, he failed to do right up to the very last column. Any summation of the race mentioned?) Maybe even Stone himself didn’t see this column as much of an opportunity to make any contribution. Hell, he seemed to confess as much in his March 2nd column when he wrote, "....this column belongs to you." His February 23rd column had been a terrific example of this. In an approximately 600-word article, he saved any mention of the mayor campaign for the final 48 words:
In the meantime, St. Louisans, I implore you to think, read, talk and argue about only one thing for the next eight days - the election on Tuesday, March 4. If you do nothing else that day, VOTE - as if your life depended on it. Your city's future does.

Well, I wouldn't exactly stake the city's future on the fact that St. Louisans would more readily accept journalistic commentary from one of their own (of which Chuck Stone is not) but suffice it to say that if I were a betting man, I'd all but swear that local folks would probably prefer such commentary from a Post-Dispatch staffer rather than some outsider. Which reminds me - I find it hard to believe that in all St. Louis, the Post-Dispatch couldn't find an adequately qualified person to cover this contest for the mayor's office. Both Jo Mannies and Gregory Freeman delivered fine coverage. And Bill McClellen, who took Stone to task early on, could have, of course, performed the job. All three certainly communicated more about what the hell transpired during this campaign than Chuck Stone did. It's quite clear that Stone spent more time defending himself - basically, fighting with readers - than analyzing the race for city hall. Maybe this was because he really didn’t know what he was doing in the first place, as he essentially admitted in a late column: “It took us 13 columns, but I think we’ve got it, we finally got it.”

“We?” “We” had nothing to “get.” But considering his decades worth of “credentials,” Stone should have “got it” from week one. But he never did. Sure, he is loudmouthed and pious; worst, though, is that he fails as a writer - and remains a brain-dead fool, incapable of making a clear point.

To borrow a phrase - a practice of which Stone is fond - from one of his columns, "what we have here is a failure to communicate."

* * * * *

Webster tells us that an "advocate" is a "defender," which, according to some Post-Dispatch folks, makes Chuck Stone a defender "for all readers."

Well, no thanks . . . not me . . . I will defend myself. And vehemently suggest that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch never again pull such a stunt.

For now, thankfully, there’s relief. After thirteen embarrassing weeks, Chuck Stone is finally going away. Maybe if he’s still bent on becoming a communicator, I could help him.

I’d start by loading one of my old manual Royal typewriters into the back seat of the convertible, drive very fast down to the Post-Dispatch building and launch the thing through the window of Chuck Stone’s office as a reminder of what blunt, effective, crystal clear communication can be.

(Of course, in these modern times, there’s probably no “window of Chuck Stone’s office” or any office for that matter, and it’s doubtful Stone has ever really stepped foot in the Post’s offices. Most likely, he’s sitting in a convalescence home somewhere, possessing just enough mental capacity to dial up Cole Campbell’s extension now and then to remind him of “that incident” so long ago - the one he appears to be holding over Campbell’s head for the twisted sake of keeping a weekly byline.)

But I’m not going to do that. And let me say, for the permanent record, that I would never consider such a deed. That would be . . . . destruction of property . . . . vandalism . . . . a crime. And Chuck Stone’s weekly blathering is probably as much crime as the Post’s staff writers - the ones who were bypassed in favor of Stone - are able to stomach.

No - instead, I’d just stay put and think about Chuck Stone sitting in some cozy North Carolina hideaway, insulated from the folks he's worked so hard to alienate these past three months.