More pros, cons about Rall’s column
Re “President Bush has power of life and death over Americans” (Dec. 20):
I will not honor the aforementioned column by a line-for-line critique. Let it be said that the column represented a new low in what The Union sees fit to publish! This column was the closest thing to irresponsible journalism that I have seen in over 60 years of scanning newspapers large and small.
If this person is on The Union’s staff, I would ask for his immediate removal ! This column, and he, goes far beyond constitutional protection. Leaving that behind, the column is sophomoric in content and logic! Can we not do better? Shame on you!
Letters about Ted Rall’s piece on President Bush (Dec. 20) forgot to mention one tiny little point. As one writer states, “He (Rall) vomits out all his venom.”
Whoa. Have these conservatives already forgotten the years of puke they directed toward President Clinton? For eight years, this Vietnam “love it or leave it” contingent leveled and directed their anger, hatred and disillusionment at Clinton-Gore, but now it’s a no-no for anyone to disagree with President Bush’s well-oiled war machine and his administration’s war mongering.
Some people must just love war.
Re Dec. 30 editor’s note that “the views expressed in Ted Rall’s column, as in all columns and letters to the editor on the Ideas & Opinions page, are those of the writer. The views of The Union are expressed in its editorials”:
How disingenuous can you get? Some editor at The Union decided to run that column and even paid for it!
I have become concerned to see more and more liberal opinion in The Union and a dearth of conservative material. More disturbing is that there seems to be no quest for quality. I disagree strongly with Molly Ivins, but at least she writes intelligently about issues. Compare that with a recent column advocating conservation as the only solution to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. How specious. What about drilling in ANWAR, or taxing imports? Liberals seem to have no understanding of economics as a tool.
Cal Thomas is a nice conservative writer, but he doesn’t offer the intellectual rigor of George Will, or Michael Kelly, or any of hundreds of syndicated writers available to offer contrary opinion. Perhaps you could look around a little more for quality opinion.
Referring to “News judgment is a fine line” (Dec. 21) and your concern about not offending some readers, why not include a political section, divided into two parts. The news is sold. No one wants to buy or read bad news.
With America the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, the news must now compete with all the other sources of entertainment. In order not to offend their viewers, the national evening news has become just another source of entertainment.
But by refining the idea of offensiveness, news that is eagerly sought by some readers but offensive to other readers could be included in the same newspaper. For example, “What other newspapers are saying” could then also include foreign newspapers. It could even include editorial comment from newspapers in Moslem nations (in a separate section). Letters to the editor could be handled the same way. You could then increase your circulation without offending an important part of your readers.
Then the minority would not be silenced, nor the minority offended.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User