Editor’s Scratchpad

Monday, April 16, 2001

Reflections on
a month in the
editorial trenches

The new Star-Bulletin has been publishing for a month now and it seems like a good time to look back on the editorial and commentary pages, reflecting on what has gone well and what has gone not so well.

At the outset, we promised "a flow of articles that are stimulating, often provocative and sometimes even infuriating. Over the course of a week, there will be something for everyone as Commentary will carry a mixture of thoughts from conservative, middle-road and liberal writers; from local, national and international analysts; from men and women; and from commentators in every ethnic community in this most diverse state in the union."

For the most part, it seems fair to say that we've followed those guidelines. Judging from the response from readers, many articles have indeed been provocative and more than a few infuriating. Among those who have been published have been Cal Thomas and Michelle Malkin from the conservatives and Molly Ivins and Mark Shields from the liberal side of the ledger. Maureen Dowd defies being labeled because her vitriolic pen scores everyone equally. A good start has been made on getting more Asian-American voices into the paper.

One thing is for sure: Every time someone on the right appears, we get a fusillade from the left; and whenever someone on the left appears, there comes a volley from the right. We figure we must be doing something right because we get censured from both sides. A few readers have threatened to cancel their subscriptions. That, of course, is their right but we have reminded some that they can't enter into the debate if they don't know what we are writing.

An item about a student's letter laced with poor spelling and bad grammar triggered a barrage of critical responses for allegedly picking on the student. That item was intended as a lament for the child and to press teachers to do better. On reflection, it could have been written better so as not to sound inconsiderate. The point, as subsequent articles have suggested, was valid but the writing was harsh.

A headline on a column about the homosexual rape of a young boy unleashed another round of censure. Few quarreled with the facts of the story, although some accused us of "gay-bashing." A typical comment came from a woman who left a message in the voice mail admonishing us not to print such inflammatory headlines. On reflection, she was right.

Sometimes the intolerance for differing points of view has spilled into personal abuse. Readers have vented their wrath by casting doubts on the ancestry of a writer and occasionally resorted to four-letter, Anglo-Saxon words that would make a drill sergeant wince. A month's experience has shown that the best response here is to drop the obnoxious letter into the wastebasket, to hit the computer's delete key for rude e-mail, and to hang up the phone on the abusive caller.

On the other hand, it has been a pleasure to have reasoned discourse with readers who have disagreed with what has appeared but who have expressed themselves in a civil and persuasive manner. Maybe not many minds have been changed on either side but those on this side have certainly been stretched.

--Richard Halloran

---