By the time it gets here and we actually look at it, we've already watched the TV news early in the morning, so the Post content bears no surprise save an occasional celebrity obituary. That's another reason that we won't be subscribing to a print newspaper after we move, and it's only inertia that keeps us from unsubscribing tomorrow.
I do look at the Opinions portion on the penultimate and ante-penultimate pages of the front section. For the most part, their opinions obviate the need for the All-Bran that might accompany their reading on some days, but I, of course, already know the editors' extreme left bent.
The other day, though, I sent a letter to the editor. I have sent some in the past, and they have been published with some regularity (and the rest ignored; they do get many, many letters). This one, though, was neither published nor ignored; rather, I received a reply from the editor of the Letters section herself.
This was what I wrote to the editor:
"Today’s (Monday) editorial pages had three letters to the
editor in regard to the Republican convention last week. Every one of
them was negative toward the candidate, Mr. Trump, or the convention itself –
or both. The previous day, there were four such letters, again, every one
written by someone opposing the Republican candidate and/or the
convention. That makes seven letters in two days with not a single
supportive letter. In the same two-day span, every single op-ed regarding
the campaign was anti-Trump, anti-GOP convention, or both.
"Are we to assume that the Post has lost virtually all of its
Republican readership, or is it simply that none chooses to write
letters? It is already a given to readers of the print edition that there
is an editorial bias; however, it is contemptible that you allow that bias to
affect the choices in publishing letters from those who actually buy the
paper. If you needed positive response to the convention, you had only to
ask."
So -- you can tell that this was written last Monday, and I can tell you that in the intervening nine days there has been, I believe, exactly one letter to the Editor that was uncompromisingly pro-Trump.
On the Op-Ed page, the page where the syndicated guest columnists have their pieces published, and which actually allows non-leftist pieces, there have been exactly zero completely pro-Trump pieces.
One would like to think that the editors of both the Letters and the Op-Ed columnists might have to subscribe to a level of balance as a tenet of their operation. However, the Op-ed writers of a conservative bent happen to be, for the most part, Michael Gerson, George Will, Kathleen Parker and Charles Krauthammer -- none of whom is supportive of Trump's candidacy.
So the Op-Ed editor can blithely say "Of course we have balance in the section -- we have four regular conservative contributors. It's not our fault they don't support the Republican candidate. And we have a contract so we have to print their stuff."
Well, just a little problem there -- this is an election season and we're less than 100 days from the voting. "Balance" is not, at least for the next 14 weeks, about conservative vs. liberal articles and principles -- it's about support for Hillary Clinton and support for Donald Trump. So it would behoove the Post, if they had anything like journalistic ethics (cue laughter), to devote at least some column-inches in the Op-Ed section currently assigned for guest contributors, to reasonable, intelligent writers whose positions are actually pro-Trump. There certainly are many.
I'm sure you're wondering what the reply was that I got from the editor of the Letters section. Essentially, she generously and very politely wrote back that letters are more typically generated by readers who are angry about something in the paper; they don't actively solicit them and would not be doing so just to achieve balance. She did not at all address the issue in the Op-Ed section, presumably because they are in a different wing of the paper's building.
So just for the record, I wanted the editors of both the Letters and the Op-Ed sections to know that there is a really easy solution.
I'm here, pen in hand (OK, laptop keyboard under hand). You need a letter, I'll give you a letter. You need an Op-Ed, I'll give you an Op-Ed -- five every week if you need them. I'll even give you some I already wrote; there are 461 and some of them are actually pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary, that would help the balance, too). I have plenty of those.
I can even do one on the sainted Khans, perhaps noting Mr. Khan's conflict of interest in his regular occupation as an immigration lawyer (his firm has deleted its Web page from the Internet since the speech), which might account for why he would be speaking on behalf of the candidate who supported the war in which his son was killed.
"Balance", of course, is a quality that eludes the Post, even in the sections where journalistic integrity would suggest that they would think balance to be important. So we can look forward to 99-and-44/100% percent pro-Hillary or anti-Trump letters, and 100% pure unadulterated pro-Hillary or anti-Trump Op-Eds.
But I'm here, guys, and I can help you. More than you know.
Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton
No comments:
Post a Comment