I just wanted to take a moment to let you know how disappointed and disgusted I was with your Jan. 10 staff editorial criticizing Sarah Palin for inflamed political rhetoric. I know this story is a week old at this point, but the more and more I thought about it, the more I couldn’t resist letting you know now how a reader of your publication felt about that piece.

Before the bodies of the victims were even in the ground in Arizona your editorial board jumped into the fray of accusing Sarah Palin, and her conservative movement in proximity, of the shootings in Arizona with nary a thread of evidence.

If a true discussion about toning down rhetoric was your intention, you could have done without trying to score political points as so many pundits and commentators have done in the aftermath of this tragedy. Your editorial reads like a story ripped off a left wing political blog with all the conservative blaming rhetoric to go along with it. Your lone mention of an individual on the left is Keith Olbermann, who in your piece is hailed as the model of civility for his vague and non conciliatory apology for undisclosed past uses of inflamed rhetoric.

As a sense of balance it would be important to note that a fellow host on MSNBC, Ed Schultz, continues to air a segment called “Battleground” in which inflamed rhetoric is used on both sides of the aisle. President Obama himself made the statement that Democrats should be ready to bring a gun to a knife fight. Additionally, noted Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulistas himself had a list of moderate Democrats targeted with bullseyes — which, ironically enough, as been erased like Palin’s crosshair map. This targeted map is believed to have originated from the old Democratic Leadership Council of the late 1980s and early 1990s. They are just a sampling of examples of other with different political persuasions that have used such rhetoric. Just 5 to 10 minutes of research could have yielded these examples that could have been used as examples.

It’s also not the point that some have apologized and some have not. A clearly political apology to make oneself look better does nothing to sooth the grief of the families of the victims, and it surely doesn’t bring them back. Political showmanship following an event like this does nothing to make the situation better, it just disgusts those watching shameless show unfold. Unfortunately your editorial staff followed in this path, adding nothing but cheap political showmanship to this tragedy.

In closing, the purpose of the examples of inflamed rhetoric that I have given was not to point a finger at Democrats. The rhetoric used in political discourse is always a metaphor for something else. Taking it away would not have prevented this tragedy. Crazy people do crazy things. The only person responsible for what happened in Tucson was Jared Loughner. Any implications of guilt for this massacre laid at the feet of anyone else is irresponsible and hurtful at best. If you disagree with Palin on policy, fine, many do and that is OK. But to use this tragedy as fodder for a political attack really damages your credibility.

I write this to you because you are my most direct media source here at school. I can watch national TV news and read the New York Times, but I’m just a small fish in a big pond. The Iowa State Daily — a paper I read everyday — is my way to keep a finger on the pulse of life on campus. Yours is a small publication, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact. Responsible journalism is your task, and I look forward to seeing your improvement in that regard in the future.