FROM LETTERS to the editor, and particularly from comments on The Gazette’s Web site, it has become clear that some people have convinced themselves that the newspaper has become a nest of poisonous “liberals” (the worst term they can think of) who seek only to force their views on a gullible public.
Most of the comments deal with opinions that appear on this page, in this space.
Two things must be said:
The first is this: This is a page of opinion, not news. The opinions expressed here are those of the writers, who sign their work, and do not carry over into the rest of the newspaper — the news pages.
The second is this: The Gazette has never aligned itself with a political party or movement that identifies itself as liberal, although it has said nice things about such parties and movements and will continue to do so, when such statements are warranted.
The Gazette began as a Republican newspaper and became, under William Allen White and with the influence of Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive Republican newspaper. Newspapers have long stopped identifying themselves as being tied to any particular political party, but The Gazette editorial page remains true to the values of progressive Republicanism.
Those values are based on certain core beliefs, including:
F It is the responsibility of government to protect the rights of all people. That responsibility includes the duty of regulating commerce to prevent destructive behavior by, in Roosevelt’s words, “malefactors of great wealth.”
F The Constitution of the United States is not a playground for the entertainment and profit of those possessing wealth or power or seeking political gain. That document guarantees the fundamental rights of every citizen of the nation. Mess with it, and you risk your own rights and those of your neighbor.
F The laws of the United States apply to all people equally. In modern terms, that can be translated as anyone from the prisoner at Guantanamo Bay to the occupant of the Oval Office.
F Fiscal responsibility is the cornerstone of a strong, free nation.
Examining those beliefs, it is clear much political discourse has changed in the past 100 years. Parties and their supporters no longer have core beliefs, only slogans. Ideas have been replaced with labels — “liberal,” “conservative” — that have no more meaning than a “Kick Me” sign.
The criticism of politicians that you find in this space is not a matter of our labels, but their bad behavior.
Disagree as you please, but know this: The Gazette’s editorial page and its editors wed themselves to no candidate and no party for gain or power.
Our loyalty is to that brief list above.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick. I didn't realize you possessed a sense of humor. You obviously do, because that was funny! You, and The Emporia Daily Democrat, are so "in the tank" for Obama that my copy is delivered damp.
September 19, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
As a keen admirer of William Allen White (I have a stack of his biographies in my possession), I believe the old editor is smiling down from heaven upon this editorial and its list of core beliefs.
Good job, Patrick!
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
September 19, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
birch (anonymous) says...
Excellent! I heard bagpipes in a storm of windbags.
September 19, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
Patrick, I found one thing funny, you say: "This is a page of opinion, not news. The opinions expressed here are those of the writers, who sign their work, and do not carry over into the rest of the newspaper — the news pages"
Funny because We ( the rest of Emporia) must Pay for our opinion to be in the newspaper, Do you Pay? Probably not, if you did I doubt you would be so free to spout off your opinion
Funny because, you are correct, it never is News and yet always shows up in a NEWSPAPER
September 19, 2008 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Wonderful core beliefs. Wonderful words. Now, back to reality.
You've said you will continue to say nice things about liberal parties and beliefs, when such things are warranted. By who's opinion? By who's standard? Ah....therein lies the rub.... apparently, "nice" things about the "other" side, are hardly ever or never warranted....and less-than-nice things about a particular side, although just as plentiful as any side, are apparently never "warranted".
The Gazette has every right to choose who they hire, what they write, and which view they consider "warranted" to say nice things about. According to their views. Fine. But an imbalance will inevitable paint the picture a certain color.
I think that WAW would be frowning down on 90% of today's media. But that's just my opinion. No more, nor more less, valid than the same stated above. But I know which opinion the Gazette will consider more "warranted".
If I were to publish any kind of periodical, and I had an "opinion" page, which regularly printed racist opinions by a racist employee, opinions which were easily shown to be factually incorrect or skewed, and rarely or never printed opinions by any employee to the contrary (if, indeed, I had any) - I would be branded a "racist" leaning publication. If I did the same for another topic, say, regularly arguing against global warming, and rarely or never printing an editorial from the opposite view, I would be considered an anti-global warming publication. If the only regular opinions I publish from staff seem to only find nice things to opine about one side only...... well....... if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...... some of us have our eyes open wide enough to see what the emperor is REALLY wearing....
Consider this: If I continually thow 1 gallon of blue paint against a wall for every 1 cup of red paint, after about 100 gallons total have been thrown, what color will most people who walk by the wall consider it to be?
September 21, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
I agree with you, Pat, that the news department of TEG is fair minded and objective. I have said that before, and will continue to do so until proven otherwise. I have never accused you or the paper of taking positions for power or gain, nor do I believe that to be the case. I have also recognized your tremendous talent, a talent that I only wish that I had in small measure. My complaint is that you have completely lost your objectivity. Some may say that an editorial writer needs no objectivity, and I can see that. Recognize, however, when you have no objectivity and distort facts, you will not be persuasive. Additionally, when you make personal attacks on people merely because of their political beliefs, you have lost your professionalism (one recent example was your attack upon Jesse Helms upon news of his death). I don't doubt that you are a good person and you write based upon your convictions. I would recommend a serious introspection if you truly believe that you have not completely and totally aligned yourself with the Left. Sometimes, it seems that you rely merely upon the Democrats' talking points to write your editorials. I know that you are better than that.
September 22, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Upon the death of the next liberal politician, Pat, I fully expect that you will write a glowing eulogy to that person, and I hope that you do. After all, in the end, whether Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, most people holding public office are doing what they think is best for the country, however misguided they may be from time to time. Upon a person's death, good manners and a sense of fairness dictate that we all say good things, at least until after the funeral. After you write that editorial praising the recently passed Liberal Democrat, take a moment and revisit your editorial concerning Jesse Helms upon his death. If you put the two editorials side by side, I think that you will see my point.
September 22, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )