Letters to the Editor – January 2003

Regarding “The Republican Win” Commentary (Dec. Issue) From “An Open Letter to Access Press Readers” [pertinent excerpt] In the December […]

Regarding “The Republican Win” Commentary (Dec. Issue)

From “An Open Letter to Access Press Readers” [pertinent excerpt]

In the December edition of Access Press, a commentary called “The Republican Win,” was published, written by Assistant Editor, Laurie Anderson.  It dissected the responses to questions submitted by the paper to then candidates, Governor-elect Tim Pawlenty, and Senator-elect Norm Coleman.  The tone of the commentary was petty and nasty.  In addition, it’s publication was ill-timed.  It took the candidates to task more for their lack of competency in their grammar than for their political positions.  It seemed to have no purpose other than to allow the Assistant Editor to use her position with Access Press to blow off steam over her disappointment with the outcome of the election.  The timing of its publication was unfortunate, as advocates began to build relationships with the new Republican administration, and as a difficult legislative session approaches.  The commentary was partisan and assumed that all Access Press readers are monolithic in their political beliefs and would see things in the same way as the assistant editor.

Lolly Lijewski

[former columnist and outgoing board member]

 

*****************************************************************

Dear Editor,

As a democrat, I am writing to publicly apologize to all those with republican beliefs who were offended by the recent article by Laurie Anderson, “Republican Win.”  I found this article completely out of bounds and disrespectful.  I’m sorry to see Access Press, which has always been an open-minded and honorable paper, stoop to this level of “commentary.”

Sincerely,

Nicole Roberts

[former columnist]

Minneapolis

*****************************************************************

 

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

Law School that fits your life