Policy amounts to censorship
I was appalled to read the editor’s new policy of not printing letters regarding our hospital in the paper any longer (only the few he hand-picks).
I recently wrote a letter myself regarding the hospital. Much of it was not printed. What Mr. Wiens likes to call “judicious” editing I see as “subjective” cutting. I brought up a few points I had never heard before which, in the editor’s words, I considered to be “new ground,” but they were cut.
However, this letter is not about the hospital, so I will say no more about it.
Many policies and laws are forced on us and when complained about afterwards we are told, “but we never received many complaints or negative input before.” The amount of times something is said can be as equally important as exactly what is said.
Letters regarding the hospital can be repetitious. But as Mr. Wiens said, recently there has been a “new surge of missives” on this issue. So does that perhaps tell you, Mr. Wiens, that this is a major issue in the community and that people still wish to be heard?
The Pilot in Brookings has always printed far more letters than the Triplicate ever has. As the Triplicate is not by any stretch of the imagination a “large” paper, perhaps you should be considering printing more letters rather than making the subjective decision about what you consider important. I would much prefer a lot larger letter section, and then I can decide what to read rather than you making that unilateral decision for me.
In the Bible in Ecclesiastes it says, “Nothing is new under the sun.” So if you’re only looking to print letters covering new ground in your paper, perhaps you need to do some serious soul searching and reconsider what you consider to be new orrelevant to this community.
Jay Chernak, Crescent City
Questions about Finigan's position
I was pleasantly surprised by the Feb. 27 Triplicate citing the supervisors’ approval of an advisory vote on the new state of Jefferson (“State of Jefferson? Advisory vote set”).
Much to my chagrin, I learned that my supervisor voted against it. I am in Mr. Finigan’s district and I had written him a letter urging him to support the measure. I received no reply and I now know why.
He is not in favor of the Jefferson State Declaration as he preferred a state without a name. That seems lame in my view.
What’s there not to like about the name of Jefferson? He is one of our Founding Fathers, for crying out loud. How can Finigan oppose putting it to a vote of the people to let them weigh in on the issue?
Maybe he thinks we are not informed enough to vote, or maybe he is afraid of what the outcome will be. Maybe our district needs a new supervisor, one who is willing to let the people vote.
Russ Burnette, Crescent City