1. As Jonathan Swift would surely agree, satire is tricky business; some folks don’t get it, don’t like it — and don’t want to see it in their monthly magazine from Nevada Public Radio. For example, Bill and Linda Warren, supporters of classical station 89.7 FM. They didn’t appreciate Andrew Kiraly’s End Note in the June issue, in which he imagined Brian Sandoval’s internal dialogue as the governor struggled to cast a vote for Donald Trump.
“We believe an entity such as NPR should stay out of politics in every manner and stick to nurturing excellence in program content without a political tone,” they wrote.
“Thus, we were disappointed considerably in the ‘Satire’ commentary authored by you (“The Reckoning”). While not big Trump fans, we believe you crossed the line regarding NPR commentary.
“One question: Have you published a similar commentary concerning Hillary Clinton and, if not, when might we expect to see that? So fraught with reckless and likely illegal actions as secretary of state and highly active (some say outrageous) fund-raising activities for her campaign through massive speaking and other financial income (with the distinct possibility that influence was peddled in these actions), it seems to us that Ms. Clinton is ready for a good dose of satire to make sure your record is evenhanded.
“The commentary left us limp with respect to future support for NPR. We will cease doing so until we are comfortable with your policies and actions in this area.”
They’re really going to hate our Political Satire Issue.
Seriously, though: We understand that some people aren’t big on satire, and we think it would be a shame if this prompted the Warrens to withhold support of the music they presumably love. Because the music hasn’t changed. The two operations — radio and magazine — while affiliated, are separate entities, complete with their own operational norms. Whereas radio (especially classical) strives generally to be politically neutral, the nature of magazines is to publish opinion and perspective pieces; it’s just a thing magazines do. Further worth noting is that the object of the satire wasn’t primarily Donald Trump, but rather Brian Sandoval. He’d said disparaging things about Trump before eventually declaring he’ll vote for the guy. So, as to the Warrens’ question about Hillary Clinton: Yes, given a similar flip-flopping dynamic and potential for resonant humor, we would most definitely satirize leftward.
Not every reader proved allergic to Andrew’s piece. “Your Desert Companion essay on Brian Sandoval voting for Trump was one of the coolest, funniest pieces that I’ve read in a very long time,” enthused UNLV professor Steven Parker. “Wonderful writing!”
2. “Thanks for Scott Dickensheets’ update on Bruce Isaacson’s progress as Clark County’s first poet laureate,” writes poet Lee Mallory about a short piece in the June issue assessing Isaacson’s surprising achievements in his first year on the (volunteer) job. “A Clark County poet laureate was, to my mind, critical due to the inevitable but aberrant influences of the city,” Mallory — who was name-checked in the piece — adds. “The falsity, pretension and hype on which ‘Sin City’ is so shakily based make the North Star universals of poetry urgently necessary. … Though distractions and risks abound, the basic gifts of poetry can keep us centered.”
3. “Nice article, captivating shots — you’ve got chutzpah!” — Facebooker Karen Haid to Heather Protz, whose street photography appeared in our June issue.