I don't routinely turn over this space to the back-and-forth I have with readers every day. Then again, I rarely have as good a conversation as I did yesterday in exchanging emails with a longtime reader.
He was incensed at our editorial Monday on same-sex marrage and indicated we left him with little choice but to cancel his subscription. He wasn't alone. It sparked a torrent of conversation online, with more than 80 comments posted on it.
Now more than ever, this is a two-way conversation. We have an opinion, and a forum to deliver it. But readers have one as well. And I urge them to use it.
I asked the man not only if he would reconsider his decision, but also if he would allow me to run his response on our op-ed pages. He declined. But his response was so good, I will offer it here anonymously. He is a longtime reader and local lawyer.
Here's my plea:
Many thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on the Daily Times and your objection to today’s editorial.
That is in fact the whole purpose of the newspaper, to foster community debate and engage with our readers. Ours is one opinion. It certainly is not the only one, nor necessarily the correct one. It is the side that we endorsed today.
But instead of merely nixing your subscription, I would urge you instead to join the conversation. If you’d like I would include your email as a letter to the editor. Or if you’d rather, please feel free to write another one.
We’re not always going to agree, but simply ending the conversation is not the answer either.
Thanks again for taking the time to resister your complaint. I assure I take them very seriously.
Keep reading!
Best,
Phil Heron
And here is his response. I assure you I rarely get emails this reasoned and well thought out. That's why I am repeating it here, albeit without his name attached:
Mr. Heron:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You are certainly much more prompt than a politician in responding. I must respectfully decline to recast my note as a “letter to the editor." I believe that the gay marriage issue – and many of the controversies facing Delaware County and the nation – are by far too complicated to be fully and properly expounded on the editorial page of any newspaper. Further, I have nothing novel or unique to lend to the dialogue that would warrant the waste of valuable newsprint.
That particular issue is being fully briefed in at least one Federal Court by advocates much more scholarly than I. The discussions are, of necessity, based on the respective parties’ predicates and assumptions. Arguing from different stating points leads good hearted people to vastly disparate results. It appears to me that the various discussions in the Times, as well as the media generally, are becoming more and more shrill and polarized, without any real effort to arrive at compromise solutions. I believe that this polarization bodes evil for our Republic. While I certainly encourage on-going dialogue, I am frankly not interested in expressions of opinion unsupported by facts or authority.
I tell my children that in a capitalist society one must sometimes vote with one’s wallet. I respect your editorial board’s freedom to espouse its various positions but when those positions become too vexatious to me, it makes little sense for me to continue to subsidize (even modestly) their publication. Years ago I cancelled my subscription to The Philadelphia Inquirer for the same reason. Regrettably the Wall Street Journal doesn’t publish pictures of my Boy Scouts. You folks do do a very nice job with your community coverage.
As a fellow product of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I wish you and your staff well.
Now that's what I call engagement.
Comments