Letters to the Editor—or not
Letters to the Editor—or not
The Herald continues to sit on the letter criticizing the racist cartoon in the Sat, Sep 15 paper. Last week, editorial page editor Scott Ayers said on his blog that he was out of letters and planned
The Herald continues to sit on the letter criticizing the racist cartoon in the Sat, Sep 15 paper. Last week, editorial page editor Scott Ayers said on his blog that he was out of letters and planned no letters in today's paper. And, indeed, there are no letters to the editor in today's Bellingham Herald. Maybe Scott and the Herald bosses should connect the dots - they are getting fewer letters because they selectively print letters.
Scott has at least one letter he is sitting on. It is from Barbara Rofkar, chair of the Whatcom County Human Rights Task Force. She sent me a copy of her letter and gave me permission to comment on it. My Sep 15 post (below) called out the cartoon as being racist. It is very anti Latino. The Herald editors - Scott ? - in deciding to print it showed either an unconscious racial bias or a complete ignorance of what constitutes racism.
The Herald has a routine practice of not printing some letters even though they fully meet their criteria. Sometimes they just delay printing a letter until the issue is past or resolved. They carefully stomp on free speech while saying they sponsor it. This is denied by the Herald. Scott denies it again in his blog today. Yet today he has no letters. What might be the reason?
People have told me of different things the Herald has done. Like verify a letter and then sit on it for weeks until an issue has been voted on. Or get a letter, sit on it, print an editorial on the contrary side of the letter and not print the letter till the issue is resolved. Or demand documentation to prove some statement a writer makes - which seems to be common on letters dealing with pollution or waterfront cleanup or issues that run contrary to the interests of some of the Herald's big advertisers. And, of course, not print a letter at all.
Deciding to not print some letters for any reason is the right of the Herald. The issue is their constant denial that the editors go through submitted letters deciding to print this one and not print that one even though the letters fit their criteria but one is contrary to the Herald's business interests. The Herald does this and has done it for many years. They have been able to ignore the complaints until Scott opened pandora's box with his blog a couple weeks ago. Now they have to deal with it.
Lets see if Scott decides to print Barbara's letter. And when. Or what flimsy excuse he might give us for delaying the printing of it.
Finally, a little treat for you today that relates to letters. I do not publish the emails I receive from readers. The reason for not printing them is explained on this linked page. Today I am printing one email received yesterday from Mitch Friedman, the Executive Director - and founder - of Conservation Northwest. The reason for printing his email is explained on this linked page. If you write me, feel safe that I will not post your email. I value the information that many well-connected persons provide to me.
Scott has at least one letter he is sitting on. It is from Barbara Rofkar, chair of the Whatcom County Human Rights Task Force. She sent me a copy of her letter and gave me permission to comment on it. My Sep 15 post (below) called out the cartoon as being racist. It is very anti Latino. The Herald editors - Scott ? - in deciding to print it showed either an unconscious racial bias or a complete ignorance of what constitutes racism.
The Herald has a routine practice of not printing some letters even though they fully meet their criteria. Sometimes they just delay printing a letter until the issue is past or resolved. They carefully stomp on free speech while saying they sponsor it. This is denied by the Herald. Scott denies it again in his blog today. Yet today he has no letters. What might be the reason?
People have told me of different things the Herald has done. Like verify a letter and then sit on it for weeks until an issue has been voted on. Or get a letter, sit on it, print an editorial on the contrary side of the letter and not print the letter till the issue is resolved. Or demand documentation to prove some statement a writer makes - which seems to be common on letters dealing with pollution or waterfront cleanup or issues that run contrary to the interests of some of the Herald's big advertisers. And, of course, not print a letter at all.
Deciding to not print some letters for any reason is the right of the Herald. The issue is their constant denial that the editors go through submitted letters deciding to print this one and not print that one even though the letters fit their criteria but one is contrary to the Herald's business interests. The Herald does this and has done it for many years. They have been able to ignore the complaints until Scott opened pandora's box with his blog a couple weeks ago. Now they have to deal with it.
Lets see if Scott decides to print Barbara's letter. And when. Or what flimsy excuse he might give us for delaying the printing of it.
Finally, a little treat for you today that relates to letters. I do not publish the emails I receive from readers. The reason for not printing them is explained on this linked page. Today I am printing one email received yesterday from Mitch Friedman, the Executive Director - and founder - of Conservation Northwest. The reason for printing his email is explained on this linked page. If you write me, feel safe that I will not post your email. I value the information that many well-connected persons provide to me.
