Here’s an excerpt of a note from a reader of the print edition that, I’m guessing, some more liberal readers might be inclined to dispute:

This will be the last letter I will be writing to the to the Times Dispatch. It has become apparent that your editorial screening process is slanted to the far left. It seems it’s Ok to bash the conservative way of thinking and that if someone strongly voices their opinion against the left it isn’t printed.

He could be right! What qualifies as far left, left, center, right, and far right depends, of course, on where you fall on the spectrum yourself. So, if you’re far enough to the right that you think John McCain is a Communist. . . .

On a more serious note: We get letters from liberals making a similar complaint in reverse. The numbers, though, show at least an attempt to be even-handed.**

After nearly two decades of dealing with letters to the editor, I think there’s a perception bias at work. People get worked up over letters they disagree with. Letters they agree with don’t provoke such a strong reaction. Emotional resonance affects memory (we’re more likely to remember something that stirs up strong feelings than something that leaves us unmoved). So, over time, conservatives “remember” more liberal letters in the paper, and liberals “remember” more conservative letters.

Hey, it’s a theory.

** E.G. -- From September 1 through November 8, 2005, the Times-Dispatch published 136 election-related letters. Of those, 61 supported Kaine or criticized Kilgore, 45 supported Kilgore or criticized Kaine, and 30 criticized both equally (e.g., by lambasting the tenor of the campaign), or addressed another election subject such as the Hanover bond referendum.

Likewise, Between August 1 and Election Day, 2004, we printed 229 letters on our Editorial Pages specifically citing the presidential aspirations of John Kerry and George Bush. Of those, 133 took anti-Bush or pro-Kerry stands; 96 supported Bush or opposed Kerry.

In each case, the newspaper printed somewhat more letters supporting the candidate it editorially opposed in its own endorsement.

But dont forget the crutch that’s a bigger problem than even drugs.

The crutch of the weak-minded that need to belittle and insult other peoples as a way to measure themselves.

You remember standing up against the wall and having the teacher mark on the wall how tall you and your classmates were? A constant need to insult others while constantly checking where you assume to be compared to the image you depict of them.. is a major weakness and does more damage to US than any drugs.

Its the only way those weak-minded peoples can create a motivational process to force themselves to progress in anyway ..but many of them become lazy and addicts and they just end up being consumed with ‘how much better am I compared to them and them and them etc “

Motivational thought and ambition processes that require the need to insult or attack others , mixed with mental masterbation about it..is the deadly combination.

How much money do you make compared to them. How do you look compared to them. How much more intelligent do you think you are compared to them. Do you have a better education , job, car, house, lifestyle. Is your stuff better, more expensive. Do you have a higher status in society. Are you worth more to society. Can you speak with bigger words...blah blah blah
speaking of addictions of the weak-minded, dont forget those heathen motivational mental masterbation monsters.

Can you not motivate yourselves without the need to sock other peoples in the eye socket, kick them in their self-esteem gut?

Cavemen that cant get out of bed without motivating themselves with how many people they are ‘better than’ today? lol weakness is even uglier whe nit packs together into like-minded groups and pretends that its not weak.

Does anybody need a little grocery store sucker and a pat on the head to motivate you today? LOL

Frank
Full Color Printing

ED said, “My guess the current thinking is drug takers are addicts.  Does not excuse the behavior (at least in my opinion) to call it a “disease”.”

No, of course not.  I’ve been crusading for drug-law reform for decades now.  If I had my way, use and transfer of EVERYTHING would be legal for adults, and simultaneously courts would absolutely reject the “disease” defense.

That is, if a defendant were to try “It wasn’t my fault that I smashed into that school bus and killed those kids; I’m an alcoholic and I was drunk”, or perhaps “I’m sorry that little old lady broke her neck when I knocked her down as I snatched her purse, but I’m a heroin addict and I needed the money for my fix”, the court would reject these as being completely irrelevant.

Free men and women should be allowed to make their own decisions, and should be responsible for the consequences of those decisions.

Ed said, “simply turning a spotlight on the issue was getting it right too.” You’re absolutely correct.  The attention paid, at that time, was in large part the result of the work done at MCV’s Department of Pediatric Medicine by Dr. George Bright.  Prior to that, drug use in Richmond was widely considered to be confined to “them”; Bright helped convince white middle-class Richmonders that the problem was also part of “us”.

Roy,

Good anecdote. My guess the current thinking is drug takers are addicts.

Does not excuse the behavior (at least in my opinion) to call it a “disease”. But it does explain why they have a hard time stopping and why it hits a variety of people, not just Commies and weak minded folk needing a crutch.

I could say both papers offered a stupid explanation but really, after all these years, illegal drugs are still sanctioned, so they must have gotten something right. We still disapprove.

I would add that simply turning a spotlight on the issue was getting it right too.

Hate to actually agree with Bart, but it is indeed a matter of perspective.  Let me tell you a story . . .

I’ve been a regular reader of the RTD—and until it folded, the RNL—pretty much all my life.  They’re both conservative, of course.

Back around 1967 or ‘68, one of the two was running a series on drug use.  The thrust of the series was that people who used illegal drugs were so weak that they could not handle reality, and so turned to drugs as a crutch.  My drug-using friends and I thought that was a great example of our local conservative newspapers, run by old fossils who had supported closing the schools to keep out the blacks.

Then one of my grandparents died, and I went down to Columbia, SC, for the funeral.  Coincidentally, at that time their local paper ("The State”, I believe) was also running a series on illegal drug use.  The thrust of their series, though, seemed to be that people who used illegal drugs were either Communists or dupes of the Reds.

Again, it’s all a matter of perspective.

I don’t know. If Barts been doing this for almost 2 decades then that means he’s printed at least one or two of my rants.

That fact alone leads me to question his judgement.

I think another factor may be cyclical intensity. For the past 3 or 4 years it’s been liberals who’ve been driven to chewing seat cushions by hyped up propaganda and politically expedient demogogery. Before that it was conservatives who were whipped up, gleefully pissed off and itchin’ to prove it.

I get the feeling that the liberal freak show is running out of hate juice and is starting to peter out. Conservatives are still stunned to realize that the people they elected were just as full of BS as the manipulative power mongers the democrats are pinning all their day dreams on.

Perhaps this is one reason everyone is gloomy about the “direction” of the country. Nobody wants either of them and ther are no honorable and credible alternatives.

Hey—I know one guy who thinks you don’t print his letters because (supposedly) you know he’s a better writer than you & that you all don’t want to be “shown up”. Seriously. He really believes that. And I do know he’s written angry letters to you because of that.

(Truth is, his letters are so bizarre I couldn’t understand why anybody would print them...)

I’ve found your editorial letter policy to be extremely fair. In fact, 75% of my published letters are criticizing you guys! So I’ve got no beef. Love that freedom of speech.

How is this for perspective? Good news about Kennedy! This is the only way he will leave office. For the past 30 years he has been one of the reasons for budget deficits, naive socialism, no flat tax, no term limits, etc. Kennedy and several others are a danger to the success of the US. Aside, from getting away with second degree murder. Lying for his nephew in rape case. Goodbye Teddy!

(Another appropriate password for Teddy: “hell”.)

Get ready for a left-handed compliment.

Because I see the T-D as more “daring” less bland, less “commercial” and less inoffensive, I find it more interesting than some of the other available editorial sources that have become self-infatuated with their image and “reputation”.

Of course when you express a strong opinion you invite strong disagreement.

It helps circulation when you can gauge and thus properly pander to your audience. That would be tough. Richmond itself is probably swinging slightly more liberal, but to what extent I can only guess, and is it real or just temporary.

Since conservatives are values voters they get slightly more emotional it seems than the liberals. The liberals make up for this by getting snooty. If it ain’t WP or NYT it ain’t worth readin’ to many a snooty liberal. 

I have gotten upset in the distant past so I can understand where this reader may be coming from. However, over the years, I have come to appreciate that there is no such thing as a universal point of view, no matter how strongly you might feel about what you believe in. I have never canceled my subscription as a result.

It has been my observation that the T-D publishs a lot of blatant partisan hyperbole. This can be entertaining but it can be upsetting to read something from way out in left field too.

I appreciate the Patrick Henry coverage. By staying involved in good ideas, not partisan politics, but good ideas, and local matters, you are taking care of business.

If I want to see Obama bashed and McCain slandered I have so many other places to turn. For people who care about Richmond and Virginia I have only a few places to turn, even when they disagree with me.

A newspaper should explain difficult issues to the readers and keep them informed. It should only be a political sounding board as a distantly miscellaneous peripheral objective.

1) Keep the bastids at Media General happy.
2) Balance is in the eye of the beholder. (mostly imaginary)
3) More coverage of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsey Lohan. (not)
4) Take care of business.

Not exactly! Over the past two years there has been a change in the types of letters printed. Many conservative views, such as mine have been surpressed. I use to be a regular writer and published frequently, even 7 CODs, however now I rarely get a tumble.

TD philosophy has become more liberal. Less dissension from the ranks is published, especially regarding the City of Richmond. Ofcourse with a shrinking subscribership it is understandable that the TD wants to keep its city base.

Post Your Comments: