Regarding the July 1 editorial, “How to rebuild trust in the media”: How strange that you have such an opinion when I have recently begun to save evidence to present to you about such a subject. I’m a relatively new subscriber to your paper, and have detected a bent toward one political party, although not as much as the Seattle Times. In order to submit facts, I’ve been saving the political cartoons you have chosen to publish and, although I (unintentionally) missed a few days, here are what the themes have been:
June 21: Republicans offering “American Public Lands, Free to states, localities, and corporations (eventually)”.
June 22: Republican (negative) reaction to a gun control bill being submitted to Congress.
June 23: NRA Gun Lobby Ammo (money) being offered to the GOP.
June 26: Criticizing House Speaker Paul Ryan’s reaction to the Democrats’ sit-in to establish gun laws, and indicating the Republicans had used “sixty-some” votes to repeal Obamacare (didn’t fully understand the cartoonist’s analogy).
June 27: Criticism of Trump proposing his “Security Immigration Threat Advisory System,” against Muslims and Mexicans.
June 30: House Benghazi Committee Bombshell being not anywhere near a bombshell, underplaying candidate Clinton’s lying and also breaching our country’s security.
So, I wish that maybe the employee you’ve chosen to decide what cartoons to publish in your Opinion page could be an alternate with someone of another political party to provide your readers with food for thought about both sides of an issue or candidates. I don’t see much, if anything, of your thoughts or thoughts of your news sources like the Washington Post, New York Times, and L.A. Times about Clinton. That would be interesting to learn instead of deducing the thoughts from those cartoons.
Thomas Markley
Greenbank
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
