Home
Letters
Letters written by Ash
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 0
By BARRY LOCHER
Published Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Dear Readers:
"Dump Coulter, Keep Coulter" - the debate has been spirited, to say the least, not just here in Springfield but around the country.
Through Letters to the Editor, phone calls, online comments and an unscientific online poll, hundreds of you have weighed in on whether or not our newspaper should continue to carry Ann Coulter's column. Though the comment that precipitated the latest outrage directed at Coulter had nothing to do with anything she wrote, it nevertheless has fueled yet another round of interest in her work syndicated through Universal Press Syndicate to approximately 100 newspapers around the country.
"If you dump Coulter, you have an obligation to dump (Ted) Rall," say many of you. "Mean-spirited, factually inaccurate, insulting, offensive, hateful, racist," say others. "I don't want any of my money going to pay her salary," some have said. (The State Journal-Register pays $8.65 per week for the column.) "If you dump Coulter I'll cancel my subscription," and from the other side, "if you don't dump Rall I'll cancel my subscription."
And so it goes, all valid arguments, heartfelt, passionate and honest. I have listened carefully and I have considered virtually every comment that has come in regarding Coulter. I have truly appreciated and valued the input. All of us who are responsible for the content that appears on the editorial and op-ed pages have been humbled and encouraged by the response shown when we solicited your thoughts.
That noted, this is one of those times when sitting in the editor's chair at a daily newspaper is exceptionally challenging, stimulating, and, yes, somewhat scary, knowing that the decision I make (however, not without the valued counsel of my colleagues on the editorial board) ultimately lands squarely upon my shoulders, and further knowing that my decision will anger at least half of you who took the time to let us know what you thought. It is my responsibility and I accept it as such. As I often tell some of my friends, "Some days can be better than others."
I've decided to keep Ann Coulter's column in The State Journal-Register. Here's why:
We have worked diligently over the past decade on a few of what I like to refer to as the fundamentals of journalism, those being principles of fairness, representation for all voices, balance in political views, balance of opinion, accuracy, accountability and credibility. We have worked hard to encourage local voices that some of you view as extreme, yet that I believe - while granted sometimes a bit caustic - have a right to be represented, especially through letters to the editor and through other, more lengthy essays, such as the "In My View" column published on Saturday. We have insisted that the editorial and op-ed pages remain open, free and available to citizens of central Illinois who take the time to put their views in writing - and to put their names on their work.
We have quadrupled the numbers of letters published, and while my research consists of gut instinct only, I believe we publish more letters from readers than perhaps any other newspaper in America. Have we sometimes gone too far in "allowing" writers to have their say on our pages? Maybe so. There can be an exceptionally delicate balance between community values, censorship, what's viewed as inflammatory and what isn't. I wouldn't be honest if I didn't acknowledge that I have many times second-guessed a decision I made regarding something we've published.
Ann Coulter's work is valued by virtually half of you who contacted us, and that's good enough for me. Because I publish her work, however, doesn't mean that I, or the newspaper, endorse any of the outrageous or otherwise loaded language sometimes evident in her work, nor in the work of any of the syndicated national columnists, our own letter writers or even our beloved Chris Britt. We must be careful not to blur the lines between what's presented as opinion and what is presented as fact.
While it is human nature to respect and admire those who share similar opinions while at the same time belittling those who do not, for a daily newspaper to be truly independent and relative to its readers it must allow and encourage vast ranges of views on its pages. While some of you may disagree, I am confident that you'll not find a newspaper in the country whose leadership respects this principle more than we do.
Henry Hyde, the former congressman from Illinois, said in 1991, "Free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates the speech that we hate." I think about that quote often when challenged by decisions such as that presented by the Coulter quandary. However, there is one equally important to me that my 89-year-old mother has often counseled, perhaps not as eloquently nor in as lofty a forum as Hyde, yet nevertheless with a great degree of substance: "It takes all kinds," she says, and as usual, I believe she is right.
Barry Locher is the editor of The State Journal-Register.
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 0
Here’s an exercise in pure cynicism, as ash points out in her concise appraisal. It was written not by Mike, the editorial page editor, but Barry, the editor of the entire paper, on whose level the decision was made. As she noted to her friend, it’s a shame she hadn’t disposed of her subscription when this controversy arose, since it certainly qualifies as a firing offense:
Mr. Locher’s “why we’re keeping Coulter” editorial reads like an essay for his Rationalization 101 class. Complete with its foregone conclusion, the entire controversy was one hell of a gimmick.
Shame on him for manipulating the readers.
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 0
Our Opinion
Published Thursday, March 29, 2007
Thanks to Jimmy Carter’s fecklessness, Ronald Reagan’s successful two-term presidency and George H.W. Bush’s able stewardship of the Cold War’s final years, Republicans have enjoyed a reputation as being more effective than Democrats at running the federal government. No more.
As syndicated columnist Robert Novak recently observed, even top Republicans in Congress routinely question the competence of the present Bush administration.
“We always have claimed that we were the party of better management. How can we claim that anymore?” a House leader told Novak.
Those laments were over the combination of the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and the FBI’s admitted abuse of the Patriot Act. Now there is yet another example.
On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on an egregious attempt to subvert the Hatch Act - the landmark 1939 federal law restricting executive branch officials from using their powers for political purposes. House investigators have documented that in a Jan. 26 videoconference, General Services Administration boss Lurita Alexis Doan urged dozens of regional GSA administrators to brainstorm on how to help “our candidates” in the next elections.
It is plain whom Doan was talking about. Her remark came after a White House political operative gave an overview of polling data from the 2006 election.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., presented some of the slides in the PowerPoint presentation from the Jan. 26 videoconference.
One named 20 Democrats in the U.S. House that the White House was targeting for defeat in 2008. Another identified 20 Republicans in the House that the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008.
“The White House briefing was partisan. It was strategic,” Waxman said. “And it had absolutely no connection to GSA’s government mission.”
Defying the Hatch Act is far from Doan’s sole transgression in her 10 months on the job. She also attempted to circumvent GSA rules and federal law to give her friend’s firm a $20,000 no-bid contract to write a 24-page report and has fought with her own inspector general over his aggressive contract audits. Given that the GSA is the federal government’s largest procurement agency, overseeing $56 billion in annual contracts, those audits are crucial.
How on Earth could someone with such bad judgment get such an important job? Surely the White House - so badly burned by Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown’s incompetence in responding to Hurricane Katrina - isn’t still installing political hacks in jobs beyond their skill set.
Guess again. Doan may have been a successful government contractor, but that is a far cry from running an agency that has 13,000 employees and manages nearly $500 billion in federal assets. Her predecessor was a senior executive for a firm with 20,500 workers and annual sales of $2.6 billion. What appears to have “qualified” her for the GSA post is the fact that she is considered a rising GOP star - she spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention - and is also a generous party donor.
This is no way to run a government. No wonder the Republican insiders interviewed by Novak were so melancholy - and no wonder new administration scandals seem to emerge with mechanical regularity. The sad fact is we can count on another “Brownie” emerging, and soon.
Ashrak wrote at 3/29/2007 7:32:48 AM
When someone can honestly say Henry Waxman isn't using his power as an elected official for strategtic political gain, let me know. More references to Katrina without any mention of Blanco or Nagin, that amounts to manufactured scandal and more Blame Bush. I have no beef with genuine criticism but we have witnessed reaching that even the fantastic four never experienced. This opinion mentions statements but not who made them? Is this accountability? FBI admitted mistakes were made but we see the word abuse used. Sensationalism is often used to embelish in order to color a picture meaning to be painted. Why not do an opinion about Feinstein resigning from the committee that saw BILLIONS in contracts go to companies here husband owned? Oh that's right, she isn't a Republican and talking about that isn't Bashing Bush so we won't see a word about it.
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 0
The second “pill” is the reference to her reading beyond the purview of that paper’s limited framework, another reminder that for all intents and purposes she has long since abandoned it as her primary source of information:
I read in the comments section responding to a house editorial that since Henry Waxman is a politician behaving politically, that somehow neutralizes the administration’s inappropriate injection of politics into officially non-partisan agencies. Though this letter will fail to nip such convoluted reasoning in the bud, I hereby dispute this notion with the following aphorism: you can’t pretend the original actor is being acted upon indiscriminately by the reactor. That’s a gangly way of saying that those who commit an original offense are hardly in the position to cry fowl when someone attempts to hold them accountable. Or, if you prefer, that you can’t be the victim when you victimized the alleged perpetrator who now prosecutes you for your initial crime.