News
Entertainment
Recent letters to the Free Press from readers countering the Armstrong's column, “Radical Environmentalists Undermine Human Progress,” is eliciting a response from me.
Do letter writers realize that by responding they are simply acknowledging and dignifying Linn and Ari's inane comments and opinions, and giving them even more reason to continue writing their column? The Armstrongs obviously relish what they're doing, stirring up readers' emotions and ire. Since their debut in the Free Press there have been many letters to the paper countering the many statements they have made, and still they continue to write a weekly column without regard to insights that writers have provided.
Then there is the Free Press. The main question is, why does the editor continue to run the Armstrong column? The editor would quickly answer by reciting the First Amendment. However, when all the layers of rationalization and justification are peeled off it comes down to selling copy. Bottom line, a newspaper (editor or editors) thrive on the fact readers are picking up the newspaper, reading the opinion page (at least), and responding to controversial opinions and half truths.
What, if anything, can be done to counter the Armstrong's weekly opinions? The most effective approach is to practice “shunning” the Armstrongs. That is, do not respond to the Free Press with a letter or letters to acknowledge and dignify their opinions. This also starts making the editor wonder if readers are picking up the newspaper or just ignoring it.
Local, non-staff columnists (in both newspapers) do not provide an e-mail address to which readers can respond. Are they afraid they can't handle direct responses from readers? Bill Grant, whose column runs in the Daily Sentinel, is the exception. If the Armstrongs had any testicular fortitude at all they would provide an e-mail address to which readers could respond directly.
To the readers of the Armstrong column you have two choices, continue being sucked into their weekly column by responding and giving them pleasure in what they're doing or “shun” them until, and when, they muster enough testicular fortitude to provide an e-mail address.
Do letter writers realize that by responding they are simply acknowledging and dignifying Linn and Ari's inane comments and opinions, and giving them even more reason to continue writing their column? The Armstrongs obviously relish what they're doing, stirring up readers' emotions and ire. Since their debut in the Free Press there have been many letters to the paper countering the many statements they have made, and still they continue to write a weekly column without regard to insights that writers have provided.
Then there is the Free Press. The main question is, why does the editor continue to run the Armstrong column? The editor would quickly answer by reciting the First Amendment. However, when all the layers of rationalization and justification are peeled off it comes down to selling copy. Bottom line, a newspaper (editor or editors) thrive on the fact readers are picking up the newspaper, reading the opinion page (at least), and responding to controversial opinions and half truths.
What, if anything, can be done to counter the Armstrong's weekly opinions? The most effective approach is to practice “shunning” the Armstrongs. That is, do not respond to the Free Press with a letter or letters to acknowledge and dignify their opinions. This also starts making the editor wonder if readers are picking up the newspaper or just ignoring it.
Local, non-staff columnists (in both newspapers) do not provide an e-mail address to which readers can respond. Are they afraid they can't handle direct responses from readers? Bill Grant, whose column runs in the Daily Sentinel, is the exception. If the Armstrongs had any testicular fortitude at all they would provide an e-mail address to which readers could respond directly.
To the readers of the Armstrong column you have two choices, continue being sucked into their weekly column by responding and giving them pleasure in what they're doing or “shun” them until, and when, they muster enough testicular fortitude to provide an e-mail address.
