Letter to the Editor

Editor

ACCESS PRESS

This is a response to the Commentary of 12-10-02 of Laurie Eckblad Anderson.  Please understand that I read it with enjoyment and interest.  This letter will concern itself with reactions to some of the sentiments, content and origin.

1. It is now a commonplace that papers contact candidates with a list of issues for response.  If you turn your pages over to someone how can you be surprised if they shape their answers to fit their needs?  I submit that when a major paper does this, they are saving staff time and therefore money by not doing research, demanding interviews, catching the candidates in public and pursuing questions and following up evasions with specific queries.
2. Why do people in publication believe that their efforts are read for information?  Further, when read, what leads you to believe that people understand it the way you meant it?  All you have to do to know otherwise is read the daily “letters to the editor” in either of our cities.
3. Further on 2 above, does your assistant editor still believe “naively” that the voting public is interested in “informed” choices?  Witness the number of committed democrats who blame loss of the gubernatorial race on the candidate’s perceived lack of charisma?
4. I would submit that the answers candidates gave to your questions could by their content alone be understood as to who takes you seriously and respects your cause.
5. While this letter may seem harsh, negative and dismissive, the fact that I take you and your efforts seriously enough to read it, think about it and respond to it should lead you to the conclusion that I hold you and your publication in high regard and wish all of you well in the New Year.  Based on who is now in office, we are all going to need protection.

Sincerely,

Elmer L. Pierre

St. Paul

© All rights reserved to Access Press Inc.
Last updated on January 8, 2003
Created and maintained by Jehad Adwan, adwan001@netscape.net.