Reader has had enough of Tay­lor

Glenside News - - LETTERS -

To the ed­i­tor:

I have been read­ing the Times Chron­i­cle for well over 50 yHDUs, HYHU sLnFH , wDs D child grow­ing up in the Mch­inOHy sHFWLRn RI $bLnJWRn. ,W sDGGHns mH WR sDy WKDW LW Ls nRw WLmH WR FDnFHO my sub­sFULSWLRn be­cause I can no longer abide WKH wULWLnJ RI 7HG 7DyORU DnG his self-im­por­tantI crit­i­calI neg­a­tive blovi­at­ing. vears agoI my Kus­bDnG DnG , bRWK OHDUnHG LnGHSHnGHnWOy WKDW DnyRnH wKR GDUHs FKDOOHnJH 7DyORU by wDy of a crit­i­cal re­sponse to someWKLnJ KH wULWHs Ls sub­MHFW WR D per­sonal at­tack from him in his col­umn.

7KH finDO sWUDw wDs wKHn KH wDs DFWuDOOy SHUmLWWHG WR WDNH D reader to task in the let­ters to the ed­i­tor. What kind of ed­i­to­rial over­sight per­mits such a lack RI MRuUnDOLsWLF SURIHssLRnDOLsm? , KDYH wULWWHn mDny OHWWHUs WR the ed­i­tor to this pa­per and other pub­li­ca­tions and never have I ex­pe­ri­enced a colum­nist who IHHOs OLNH WKHy Db­sROuWHOy musW KDYH WKH finDO sDy, WKH ODsW wRUG, DnG HYHn wRUsH, WUy WR mDNH WKH per­son who dared voice an op­po­site opin­ion look un­in­formed and fool­ish.

eow can own­ers and ed­i­tors who value their read­ers per­mit this neg­a­tive cur­mud­geon D wHHNOy FROumn? 3HUKDSs LW wRuOG bH sOLJKWOy OHss Dn­nRyLnJ if read­ers were free to re­spond and know that our opin­ions would be per­mit­ted to standI be re­spected and val­ued. To my NnRwOHGJH, WKDW KDs nHYHU KDSSHnHG. , DOwDys bHOLHYHG WKH pur­pose of news­pa­per col­umns was to elicit reader re­sponse. eow can it ever be ac­cept­able IRU D FROum­nLsW WR bUDsKOy DnG UuGHOy smDFN GRwn UHDGHUs? $UHn’W yRuU UHDGHUs, yRuU FOLHnWs? DRn’W wH HYHU KDYH WKH right to the last word if we dis­DJUHH?

, WUuOy UHJUHW KDYLnJ WR WDNH WKLs sWHS RI FDnFHOOLnJ my sub­sFULSWLRn, Ds , UHDOOy GR HnMRy WKH en­tire rest of the Times Chron­i­cle. (And the op­tion of read­ing the en­tire pa­per but mak­ing a point of skip­ping one writer Ls Dn­nRyLnJ Ln LWs Rwn ULJKW.) 6R unIRUWunDWHOy, RSHnLnJ WKH news­pa­per week in and week RuW DnG UHDGLnJ 7DyORU’s nHJD­tive di­a­tribes is like hav­ing a crit­i­cal neigh­bor show up at the GRRU DnG wKLnH DbRuW HYHUy­thing wrong in the world and thenI if I dis­agreeI blame evHUyWKLnJ Rn mH. , Dm nRW sDyLnJ WKDW HYHUy FROumn HYHUy wHHN Ls IUusWUDWLnJ DnG Dn­nRyLnJ WR read. That’s not the case. But , wLOO sDy WKDW, GuH WR 7DyORU’s neg­a­tive out­look on lifeI the YDsW mDMRULWy DUH. HRnHsWOy, LI WKHUH wHUH ODws DJDLnsW SRnWL­fi­cat­ing and self-pro­mo­tionI Ted 7DyORU wRuOG bH Ln MDLO IRU OLIH.

6KRuOG yRu GHFLGH WR SULnW WKLs OHWWHU RU sKRw LW WR 7DyORU, , wRuOG OLNH WR ODy GRwn D FKDOOHnJH WR 0RnWJRmHUy 3ubOLsKing ed­i­tors: al­low this criticism to stand and not per­mit Ted 7DyORU, unGHU WKH JuLsH RI “IUHH speech” the right to re­spond with neg­a­tive criticism of me in the news­pa­per. I sus­pect it is neigh well im­pos­si­ble for him to re­strain him­self. Marge Sex­ton


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.