My oh my!Sounds like republicans really just hate free speech and
don't want to read anything that challenges their draconian views of the
world. What's wrong with the Post? What factually is wrong with some of the
columns? Or is it because your opinion isn't supported by its facts?
Hey, I made an offer to the DN editorial page editor to write a free weekly or
biweekly column. I'm a professional editor and writer. My columns would
offset some of the right-wing nonsense coming out of the Sutherland Institute
and other likeminded institutions. Do you think they jumped at my offer? Hahaha.
The DN is a fully conservative paper, and that includes the editorial page,
which they pretend offers a wide variety of opinions. And it has gotten more
conservative with Boyd M. of the Sutherland Institute replacing H. Boyd. If I
want to read a decent editorial page, I go to the SL Trib, the Washington Post
or the NY Times. To the DN, a "liberal" opinion is Michael Gerson (a
Republican) taking on Trump.
Mr HansenJust because a journalist works for the Washington Post,
New York Times or any other "liberal" news outlet you might care to
name, does not mean that the journalist in question has a biased view towards
the GOP or conservative viewpoints (which today seem to diverge). The DN is
quite adept at publishing almost any opinion piece out of the Sutherland
Institute, from LDS leadership (generally a politically conservative opinion) or
almost any other conservative think tank out there. And as already mentioned,
most of the opinion pieces from writers for the Washington Post are conservative
anyway. What's the beef? You have problems even reading the words:
"Washington Post"?And besides, the DN would do its readers
a disservice should they only print viewpoints to which you will agree. This
seems more often than not the case anyway. Are you afraid of a
differing point of view?
If the underlying complaint here is that the WaPo op-ed page is too liberal for
the tastes of the average DN reader, I think it's fair to point out that
the DN is using columns from Marc Thiessen, George Will, and Michael Gerson, who
are hardly card carrying liberals. Will and Gerson might express revulsion at
Trump and what he's doing to the GOP, but their conservative bona fides are
beyond question. It's not like the DN is carrying columns by EJ Dionne or
Eugene Robinson (though I'd welcome a balance against the regular columns
from the Sutherland Institute).I think the presence of columns from
these writers on WaPo's op-ed page demonstrates that the WaPo is a
professional, quality media source that does not limit political perspectives
only to those aligned with the paper's editorial staff. Which is more than
I can say about a great many echo chambers that are increasingly demanded as
alternatives to the "evil MSM" by many on the far Right.
It's kinda funny how the diehard Trump fans can't accept reality, they
want all news to repeat Foxes nonsense.The truth is, Trump is a
cruddy president, and not even a very likable person.When people
think the DNews has gone liberal or just on the Trump attack, they have lost
sight of what real news is.Not to worry, Trump is hiring from his
favorite news entertainers, few others would want to work for the failing
president, except those with Russian connections, for some weird reason?
Some people don't like WaPo or CNN or the NY Times, Boston Globe, LA,
Chicago news papers, Sacramento Bee, or any other news source that prints the
truth about Trump. I'd have to guess that those people seeking
"fake news" are watchers of Fox News, Breitbart, and other right wing
infotainment sources.To quote Jack Nicholson, "you can't
handle the truth."
It could be that articles from the Washington Post cost less than those from
Asking for a variety of voices is not asking for an echo chamber Hutterite. To
further support this letter, it must be noted that the WaPo has tossed aside
journalistic standards in it's never ending campaign to attack our
President. Time after time the WaPo has published headline news about thinks
the President has supposedly done wrong. Based on "anonymous" sources.
Yet time and again the stories fall flat when the facts come out. Why is the
unreliable WaPo the only source of opinions?The Des News would do
well to find a wider variety of opinions from across the country, the NYTimes,
LA TImes, as well as the occasional conservative opinion source as counter
balance.We should not be afraid of any opinion, but find a variety
of sources. Preferably from outside the beltway.
I think Hutterite is waaay out of line. It is possible to share a disagreeing
view without being snide or disparaging. I look for a well though out opinion
that leaves out the emotions and disparaging remarks. This author isn't
looking for an "echo chamber" opinion, and I agree with it. If anything,
the Washington Post is the "same old same old" that I can get from all
the other main stream media sources. And Hutterite wants to bring up echo
chambers? Lets have an objective, fact-based discussion. The emotional appeals,
name calling, etc. are getting old.
In your search for an echo chamber do you miss the Sutherland or Heartland op-ed
pieces? Or those from some industry schill or another? They're here,