Several weeks ago, John Donovan, a writer obviously weary of Michael D. Day’s rhetoric, implied The Advocate should stop printing Day’s letters. Though it’s true that The Advocate features Day’s letters so often that one might think he was on staff, banning is not the way to go — it is actually representative of a page from the liberal’s playbook aimed at silencing conservative thought in the media, on college campuses and elsewhere. A better approach is to do what I do — not waste time reading Day’s opinions.
Though Donovan’s letter was founded in frustration, it opened the door for The Advocate to print a flood of letters that followed condemning Donovan specifically, and conservative thought in general.
Several writers suggested that this was a freedom of speech issue. Not really. It has more to do with freedom of the press. The Advocate decides every day which stories they wish to run, how they want to “headline” them, what page to put them on, etc.
I have no idea whether Readers’ Views that are printed are generally in ideological proportion of letters submitted, or is more a reflection of the editorial staff’s ideology. We readers are not privy to that information.
I do know this, however: From Feb. 3 of this year through today (Aug. 23), The Advocate has printed the views of liberal syndicated columnists 423 times versus only 230 times for their conservative counterparts.
I find this fairly heavily skewed in the liberal direction, given that this newspaper is housed in the capital city of a very conservative state.
retired chemical engineer