“I don’t know what side of this issue you are on, but I pray that it is the morally right one.”

The morally right one?  Am I wrong that the statement just stinks of judgment and condescension?  This woman stated what she believes and then labelled it as “the morally right” opinion.  And, on top of that, she directed it to me specifically, praying that I, too, am on the morally right side of the debate.  Oh, I am not worthy, madam!

Perhaps I’m overreacting, but I don’t think this good witness to one’s beliefs.  Why would I want to take sides with someone who sees themselves as superior and, in the presentation of their opinion, is quite condescending.  My immediate reaction was to ignore the content of the rest of the e-mail and allow a deep desire to completely disassociate myself with this person simply because she’s so haughty.

This brings me to another lesson I take from listening to viewer opinions and that is regarding to presentation.  If I believe I am right about something and hope to convince someone else of the truth, it will more readily happen if I present it with fact, an open mind and a willingness to accept that there are opinions other than my own.  That creates a comfortable environment for an honest and respectful debate.  People tend to be more so willing to listen and think on opinions opposite of their own in such an environment.

One of those lessons relates to absolutes.  It’s quite common for people to speak their opinions in absolutes.  ”The media always…”  ”Every illegal immigrant…”  ”All Muslims want to…”  The thing is, absolute statements are absolutely not true.  Statements about “the media” condemn every single member of the media, which isn’t accurate.  The word “always” is a lofty accusation that cannot be supported by the facts.  And, every member of a race or a religion is not like every other member.  Not all illegal immigrants are entering our country for shady reasons.  Some want a better life for their families.  Not all Muslims want death to all infidels.  There are peace-loving Muslims, just as there are Christians who would kill non-Christians.  Absolutes are absolutely not true.

And so, I’m quite careful with my speech, making sure for qualify my generalizations or be specific rather than using a blanket statement that’s not supportable as absolutely true.  Too many people are vilified because some choose to judge an entire group for the actions of the few.

Here are come of the calls we received:

“Rod Blagojevich, uh, he can talk his way out of a closet.  And as far as Sarah Palin is concerned, uh, she is a clown.  And we’re doing Shakespeare a disservice by even putting her in comparison with him.”

“Hey, it’s just like OJ Simpson; if you got enough money you can get off of anything you want to.  You can kill anybody or do anything you want, but, it just like OJ Simpson, always good if you’ve got money.  That’s what it takes.”

“John from Moline.  You guys claim to be ‘Live, Local, Latebreaking.’ I haven’t seen a local story off you yet, almost 10 minutes into the newscast.  “Live, Local.”  You’re not living up to your name.”

And then later:

“This is John from Moline again.  15 minutes of news and nothing local.  I thought you were ‘Live, Local, Latebreaking.’  You’re not living up to your name.”

John,  thanks for watching.  It’s apparent by your lack of knowledge of the 6:30 format that you’re a first time viewer!  We’re glad to have you!  We hope you’ll continue to watch News 8 @ 6:30.  If you do, you’ll realize the 6:30 is not a locally focused newscast.  We cover national and international headlines, local weather, technology, social networking and entertainment stories.  While we are under the WQAD umbrella of “Live, Local, Latebreaking,” we are the only newscast without a local angle, other than weather.  GMQC, News 8 at 11, News 8 at 5, 6 and 10 all “live up to [our] name” of “Live, Local Latebreaking.”

Anon6417: Leave the woman alone, hispanic, Apafrican American or martian….if she has the education, experiernce to do the job, let it be.

Mind you, this was the first reference to race made in the night’s chat.

MidwestMadWoman:  beacuse this is obamas nomination she will get a skate….a republicans nominee would be picked apart

Anon6417: Oh I get it, if it was a Bush follower than fine it would be okay?

Thomwhite: Obama’s previous pick was picked apart.  Kagan is earning a lot of respect from Republicans, who say her answers are respectable.

Illinoispam:  Sonia SotoMayor was picked apart.

Anon6417: Sonia SotoMayor is the sh*T!

Anon6417: Let OUR People rule!!

This, and other comments, made it clear that Anon6417 is Hispanic.

MidwestMadWoman:  the people need a bigger voice in my opinion

Anon6417: So what are ypu saying? NO Mexican American can do the job or have a big voice?

No, that’s not even remotely what she’s saying.  This comment is out of left field!

Thomwhite: Wait.  When did this turn racial?  I’m lost.

Me, too.  Wait, you are me!  Or, I am you?

Anon6417: Arizon needs a a$$ beatiing for doing what they did

Anon6417: You all know it is all about the color of the skin whenn it comes to politics

Anon6417: Tell the truth now!

Um, the truth isn’t that it’s ALL about the color of the skin in politics.  It is for some, but I wouldn’t say so for the majority.

Anon6417: If a white man was president now, Pres Obam would not be gettting the blame for things he had nothign t do with.

Illinoispam:  That doesn’t make sense.

Anon6417: My father was illegal….

Thomwhite: Actually, I disagree with you on that one.  It’s a political party thing much more than a racial thing.

Anon6417: Ya riiiiight

Anon6417: okay I will let you believe that

Thomwhite: The Democrats blamed W. for everything and now the Republicans are blaming Obama.  It’s like that for every president.

Anon6417: And so they should blame his dumb ass

MidwestMadWoman:  politics are politics

MidwestMadWoman:  a dumb ass can be any color

MidwestMadWoman:  just as a politician can

Okay, Anon6417 is Hispanic and the son or daughter of an illegal immigrant.  I would be surprised if Anon didn’t experience racism firsthand, so I understand the perspective from which he or she is operating.  However, race was not at all a part of the conversation until Anon made it so.  My mind is trying to wrap around this concept, that this is somehow reverse racism.  No one else in the chat brought up race.  Anon was the first and carried it through the rest of the conversation.  Isn’t his or her cry of “racism” a form of racism itself?

A viewer e-mailed the 6:30 last night in response to our In Depth look at Afghanistan.  While sharing about his sun just returning from a tour there, he basically accused us of being irresponsible by talking only to the heads of the military and not the soldiers who’ve served there.  He also said we have no right to ask viewers for their opinions, unless the viewer is a soldier who’s served in Afghanistan.

I often disagree with the opinions shared with the 6:30.  While I respect an individual’s right to an opinion, I do not respect an opinion that’s not grounded in facts, but is based on misinformation or blatantly ignoring the facts.  It is my job to provide the facts on which an opinion can be made.  It bothers me greatly when someone sees a show I’ve produced and then e-mails us with thoughts that directly contradict the facts included in the show.  However, I do not respond to opinions.  I read them, acknowledge that it’s merely someone’s opinion and I move on.  As a rule, I do not respond with my own thoughts as it only stirs up trouble.  I respect that a viewer has an opinion and value that he or she has shared it with us regardless of whether or not I agree with the opinion.

Accusations, however, are another story.  I have trouble letting pointed accusations slide.  Despite my better judgment, I respond to them and point out the errors made within the statements of blame.  It rarely goes well, as it didn’t with the viewer saying we are irresponsible in our coverage of Afghanistan.  It inevitably gets personal.  I do, however, end the back and forth in the same way, with self deprecation and apology regardless of whether or not I’m right.  But, it would be better if I simply didn’t reply in the first place.  :-(  Live and learn.

So, today’s topic is Afghanistan.  Admittedly, it was tough to create an entire segment on the situation there, given the resources provided to me.  Today marked the 3ooth British soldier killed there and the Special Envoy to Afghanistan was attacked during his visit, so there’s at least a reason to focus on Afghanistan.  I ended up filling it out with political ideas, both from the U.S. and from Afghanistan, on how to “fix” the situation there.  I hope it’s at least informative.

What was tough was finding a balance.  Admittedly, ABC and CNN  sent more sound bites from those for same sex marriage than those against.  In fact, I could only find one bite from those against, that being from the lawyer for the defendants in the trial.  It’s a great bite, filled with more substance than any of the for same sex marriage bites, to be honest.  However, it’s only one sound bite.  I ended up pulling a bite from yesterday to help balance the viewpoints on tonight’s show.

Jason Fechner is no longer the 6:30 anchor.  While we’re sad to see him go, he’s not going far.  Jason now co-anchors News 8 at 5, 6 and 10 with Rae Chelle Davis.

Matt Hammill now has the honor of sharing the 6:30 with you each night.  Matt brings a very different style, but also a strong news telling nature that we hope you’ll like.

We are also pleased to say that Storm Team 8 Chief Meteorologist James Zahara is still the 6:30’s meteorologist!

Long-considered impossible to stage, Troilus & Cressida takes place in the later years of the Trojan War.  Achilles (Steve Quartell), the Greeks’ hero, has removed himself from battle, preferring to spend his days with his lover, Patroclus (Cole McFarren), and enjoying a love-affair-through-letters with the daughter of Priam (Matt Moody), the king of Troy.  Priam and Agamemnon (Patrick Flaherty) endeavor to bring Achilles and the Trojans’ hero, Hector (David Furness), face-to-face on the battlefield - a plan that, for the Greeks, involves a scheme to first pair Ajax (Matt Mercer) against Hector, enticing Achilles back into action.

While their names make up the title of the play, the story of Troilus (Andy Koski) and Cressida (Jaci Entwisle) makes up but a fraction of its telling.  This is unfortunate, however, as their storyline - a romance that ends with the handing over of Cressida to the Greeks - is the clearest of any in Shakespeare’s script.

Troilus & Cressida is a theatrically complicated twist of time, a confusing back-and-forth between the Greeks and Trojans, with the audience witness to events that take place in two locations simultaneously.  Thankfully, to make the chronology of events clearer, director Maggie Woolley cleverly incorporates a radio announcement with the time of day at the top of the opening act (with the Trojans), and then does so again at the top of the second act, starting the same day over again (with the Greeks).

Helping to visibly distinguish the two warring sides within her peach color palette, Woolley and fellow costume designer Cait Bodenbender dress the characters in distinct patterns and levels of finery.  The Trojans wear leather armor, fine suits, and even underwear meant to convey a greater wealth than the Greeks, who are clothed in camouflage pants.

Woolley has also assembled a cast of committed actors who seem to hold nothing back either physically or emotionally; space limitations prevent me from mentioning each, though every actor deserves accolades.  Of particular note: Quartell offers a balance of cockiness and disinterest; Furness presents the heroic Hector as both strong and admirable, and displays a caliber of acting ability that’s equally admirable; McFarren (who also portrays Paris) is believably enamored with Quartell’s Achilles; Entwisle creates a likable Cressida in a script that makes that a tough task; Denise Yoder seems completely comfortable with the language and physical representation of Pandarus; and Moody, as one of the Myrmidons, well-embodies the play’s perception of the Greeks as lowbrow. (Moody’s ad-libbed lines, however, are all-too-often delivered louder than the script’s actual dialogue.)

While each actor seems to know exactly what his or her character is saying, none seem as fluent with the language as J.C. Luxton, who delivers Ulysses’ lines as if this were the way Luxton actually spoke in daily life.  He’s also not tripped up by rhymes, which do affect the naturalistic cadences of some of the other actors.

And I would be remiss not to set Stephanie Burrough apart from the others.  Her Helen of Troy is good, but her camp whore, Thersites, is amazing.  With loose and brazen physical movements, she brings humor to a character who has led a humorless life.  It’s fun to watch from the audience, but Thersites’ humor is also clearly a coping mechanism for the character, and that Burrough is able to present it as one is a testament to her strength as an actress.

I am somewhat relieved to say, based on my conversations with others, that I was not the only one who struggled to understand the plot of Troilus & Cressida.  I think that’s Shakespeare’s fault.  It’s to the Prenzie Players’ credit, though, that I was not bored, and actually quite enjoyed watching the show… despite my confusion.

For more information, visit PrenziePlayers.com.