Last week, I received a letter to the editor concerning a GSBpresidential candidate endorsement.

Normally, I hold the policy that if someone takes the time to write a letter, the letter is timely and I have the space to place it, it will run in the Daily.

I don’t normally question people’s motives, perhaps out of a trust for the readers or due to some impractical naivete.

However, this trust was recently tested.

The letter, which said in partial, “To clarify what a letter to the editor is, it’s an opinion-based article that anyone can send in. I can write about the sky falling down. The point is, it does not need any truth nor did I need to present the truth.”

This kind of philosophy bothers me. I cannot think of another place in the world where freedom of the press and opinion is stressed so vehemently — and yet is abused so often.

It’s no wonder the press carries such a bad image with its pages. I suspect the readers not only expect it, but some, as shown in letters such as the one above, promote it.

I expect a columnist to do a little research before writing an argument. Editorials require some reading and thought. I would hope that those who choose to write a letter to the editor include, at the very least, the truth.

If not for your argument, include the truth for the readers.

How much arrogance is needed before the truth is actually told? Why does one criticize the media first and then lie for their argument? It seems counter-productive in the continuing effort to define the media in society.

No where else are the boundaries of the First Amendment tested to such an extent than in the pages of this publication, in a newspaper across town and across the country, in a work of fiction, a supermarket tabloid or in the lobby of Beardshear Hall.

Some have said that the press goes too far, that it unfairly invades the lives of people who in turn are exposed to a mass audience for scrutiny and review.

At the same time, a publication, because of the First Amendment, is constantly exposing it’s credibility to a mass audience for scrutiny and review.

I have heard the argument that changes in the First Amendment are needed to protect the public, but I ask how can a society be protected from itself?

A newsroom is not different. We’ve gone from being “the boys” pandering to a small, controlling public to a hated and despised group of news reporters.

Almost every profession receives criticism, and one of the harder things to learn in life is how to deal with such criticism.

For example, no one makes positive jokes about lawyers. People who work in sales are deemed an annoyance. The police never seem to be there when needed. But in truth, it’s easier to criticize than praise. It’s more fun. It is cohesive with a preconceived notion that one group is less trusting than another.

To an extent, this is fine. People grow from criticism. It’s the arrogant use of lies presented as the truth that’s wrong.

I still believe, and call me old-fashioned, that the freedom of speech and press is a privilege we Americans live on, which so many other countries don’t. It’s almost at our disposal.

It can be called a privilege because in the right environment, it can so easily be taken away.

Like the letter stated, “… it’s an opinion-based article that anyone can send in.”

Anyone can freely use these pages for their opinion without the threat governmental persecution. In other places around the world, this may not always be the case.

In fact, the only thing a letter-writer is putting at risk is their own argument.

There will be extremes to how this privilege is handled, either in a publication or here on campus. But one must first look to the truth when forming an argument. An English professor will tell you it’s the best way to stake a claim.

Any argument grounded outside of the truth will do more harm than good. If one must avoid the truth in order to win an argument, then the argument should not have happened in the first place.

For those who feel the need to criticize a publication for errors or a lack of information, I urge you to comment on it. But just as you would expect a columnist to present a sound argument, the letter in return should also be sound in its content.

Each, in its own way, seeks to inform the public.

Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf or how the sky was falling before taking pen to paper in your argument and sending it to a newspaper.

If you don’t, you won’t remove credibility from the publication, you will only take it away from yourself.

Continue to ask yourself what’s really important in these issues. Continue to ask yourself if your criticism is worth your credibility.

---

John Mullen is a senior in liberal studies from Waterloo. He is opinion editor of the Daily.