My letter to the Post-Crescent

Here's my letter to the Post-Crescent in reaction to their call for letters to the editor favorable to our Whistle Ass leader. I'll be real surprised if I see this in the paper:


I sense a peculiar odor emanating from the corner of Superior and Washington streets here in Appleton. There's just a whiff of the aroma of journalistic hubris; a hint of the stench of corporate marching orders; a barely discernible modicum of insalubrity with overtones of the sweat of desperation; a mere suggestion of the scent of tainted Kool Aid.

Your solicitation of letters to the editor favorable to President Bush strikes a discordant note here in readerland. Your institutional memory appears to be short. I don't recall reading any pleas for balancing opinion in times when the mail was overwhelmingly supportive of the President and his policies and actions. That despite evidence that all was not as savory or as wholesome in our government as popular media coverage led us to believe.

Now that a more complete picture of the true nature, competence and agenda of the Bush administration is emerging despite heroic attempts at secrecy, public opinion has turned. Are we seeing a feeble attempt to slant reader perception of consensus opinion and recognition of that trend? I hope not.

xxxxx xxxxxxx

And it would be fun to see the response by other readers. BTW - good letter.

Here's the link:

http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/opinion_16023404.shtml

...it would be because you used really big and/or complicated words. You are crediting those who support someone who (it is widely believed) cannot read with having reading skills themselves.

JM

I think this is an interesting story. I'd love to know if they ever solicited e-mails favorable of Clinton at ANY time from '92 - '00. Somehow I doubt it.

Mine was more anti-Post Crescent than anti-Bush:

I personally resent your editorial of May 4th asking for letters which are favorable to the Bush administration. For you to be soliciting letters of a certain viewpoint will hardly give a balanced picture of what our community is all about. The only way to do that would be to publish all the letters you receive, or a representative sample based on the ratio of pro vs. con. Balance doesn't necessarily mean 50/50, it means proportion. And if more people are writing letters that are critical to this administration, then so be it.

You surely don't seem to be an unbiased newspaper. Vic Minahan must be rolling over in his grave.

To those who aren't old-time Appleton hands, Vic Minahan was the long-time owner/publisher of the paper when back it was privately held. He was succeded by John Torinus, who I believe was his son-in-law. Vic had a reputation for "getting to the bottom" of the news.

If this was getting more press...the paper could be ruined.

Your May 4th editorial requesting letters to support the President is just another disgusting display of bias towards Bush in the media.

While John Kerry struggles to get his message across not because he isn't giving one but rather because the press refuses to cover it, Bush is constantly played off as a good guy friendly simpleton that is not at fault for any mistake made by his administration.

When he's caught outright lying on nearly every issue the Press (Post Crescent included) looks the other way and changes the topic.

Maybe instead of calling for letters to help the President look better you should be calling for a new President.

After all, it seems your readers have him figured out for what he is, even if you don't want to report it.

-Robert Poole, Jr.

If we keep it up maybe we can keep 'em honest at the P-C! There are some good folks working there, but that Gannett ownership is worrysome.

Steve

I should add my dad lives in Illinois. This still pissed him off enough. Should be interesting...

After reading the editorial of May 4 requesting letters on a specific subject in order to balance out coverage, I was struck by the fact that perhaps there are issues in which no balance exists.
In this case, the paper is actively seeking letters that support Mr Bush. It occurs to me that this may be the problem with today's polarization, this need to demonstrate a non-existent counterpoint to an obvious majority judgement - in this case the fact that Mr Bush does not warrant a balance of letters in support. Any cursory examination of the events of the last three years will show that this administration has failed miserably in virtually every endeavour it has undertaken. It is a shame that the so-called liberal media would actively attempt to paint things any differently.

I just heard Thom Hartmann mention this story on his radio program. He said that the paper was from Menasha :)

You can hear what he had to say by going to www.whiterosesociety.org and clicking on Thom's show from May 10. It was pretty early in his show.

had anything to do with bringing this to light?