Newspaper not getting enough pro Bush letters. Can you help?

Posted in it's entirety since it is a plea for help.

Editorial: Another swing at the plate on letters to the editor


A May 4 editorial in The Post-Crescent noted that in this presidential election season, with polarizing partisan politics at full speed, it was curious that our letters were mostly one-sided.

We were partially motivated by some readers in the Valley, who thought we were intentionally printing letters from only one side of the aisle.

Unfortunately, we weren’t clear enough in our intent. Many readers perceived our plea in the editorial for greater reader participation as an unabashed solicitation for people to weigh in on the side of the incumbent president. We should have done a better job stating our case.

But by invoking the name of a candidate, we came off as trying to beat the drum for him.

Hindsight being 20-20, we can now see how it was taken in that vein, even though our editorial track record has been critical of the administration’s execution of the war in Iraq; the historically high federal budget deficit; the Medicare prescription drug plan and a proposed constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, to name a few.

So, here’s another swing at the plate: If you don’t agree with the letters we print, pick up a pencil or punch a keyboard and write a letter with a differing viewpoint.

We’re not holding back pro-Bush letters and only running pro-Kerry letters or vice versa. We never have.

Keep the cards and letters coming.


------------------------------------------


Here’s our original editorial from May 4:


Letters to the editor, a staple of The Post-Crescent’s Views pages, are a way to take the political and social temperature of the Valley. A well-written letter allows readers to ponder different points of view, perhaps made more poignant because the author is someone you might know. At best, they should offer a full spectrum of beliefs and topics.

Recently, though, as the race for president heats up, we’ve been dealing with this quandary: How can we balance the perspectives and topics of our letters when many of our submissions have been coming only from one side?

We’ve been getting more letters critical of President Bush than those that support him. We’re not sure why, nor do we want to guess. But in today’s increasingly polarized political environment, we would prefer our offering to put forward a better sense of balance.

Since we depend upon you, our readers, to supply our letters, that goal can be difficult. We can’t run letters that we don’t have.

Finally, a myth to dispel: We don’t give our letters any sort of political litmus test to determine if they make it into print. If that were so, we wouldn’t run letters that take swings at who we are and what we print.

If you would like to help us “balance” things out, send us a letter, make a call or punch out an e-mail. Read the handy box at the bottom of the page for more information. We’d love to hear from you

http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/opinion_15959053.shtml

"DAMN! We got caught with our pants down! Uh... well... here's what we MEANT TO SAY... please IGNORE what we actually said. M'kay?"

-- Allen

I don't think the pro bush people are feeling too self righteous right now, thus no letters.

I'm reminded of Republican imbecile Roscoe Bartlett, who during a House hearing in the summer of 2001 actually pleaded with a cabinet official, "Please tell us how this isn't really such a stupid idea."

only on their website

I would assume it will appear in print tomorrow....?

their other editorials which were also posted today were in the print version.

But you're right. I should give them the benifit of the doubt and wait til tomorrow.

lets write them some letters.
We could write about how the constitution sucks, or how the bill of rights only applies to christians, or how torture is constitutional if applied to heathens. The list goes on and on.