Don Zeigler dot Info

As I recall from my nearly nine years at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, the main job of a newspaper is to present news and opinion in a balanced manner. One would not know that from reading this paper, at least not the online edition, which is supposedly a mirror of the print version.

Nearly every editorial published in the online edition shows a marked right-wing bias. From my time there, I know the paper used to run opinion columns that offered a more liberal view, to balance out columns that were of a more conservative bent. I wrote one for about a year, and the paper would run syndicated columns from other writers who, like me, leaned somewhat to the left.

This was fair and balanced delivery of the opinions of the day, from writers who came from all parts of the political spectrum. Sadly, this seems to be a thing of the past at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph.

I first thought this might be an issue with online reprint rights to the syndicated columns. Even taking the financial aspect of this into consideration, it is the job of the paper to provide a forum for political discussion that encompasses everyone. As it stands, when you read the online edition, you get one world view shoved into your face – the conservative one.

The late Tom Colley, a conservative, and executive editor of the paper, believed in providing such fair and balanced coverage. On the basis of my frequent contributions to the Letters to the Editor section, he, along with then-publisher Gary Adkisson,  encouraged me to write a weekly column, even though 95% of the time he disagreed with what I wrote.

Taking the syndication issues out of the equation, there are surely more than a few qualified writers in the area, of the liberal persuasion, who would be able to contribute their thoughts on a regular basis. The conservative writers, obviously, have every right to speak their mind. Is this option being offered to prospective contributors who "lean to the left?"

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph does its readers a huge disservice by not offering the other side of the story when it comes to the political issues of the day. It's their job to do so, and they are failing miserably.

In the January 12 edition of the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, the opinion piece on page A-4  claims Barack Obama has a nonchalant attitude towards terrorism. The writer lambasted the president for not making a statement about the attempted Christmas Day bombing until three days after the incident.

How long did it take George Bush (whom the opinion writer has professed in the past to admire) to make a public statement on shoe bomber Richard Reid? Six days. Did the writer complain back then? For some reason I believe probably not.

He intimates Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously without offering any real evidence of this other than to regurgitate the standard right-wing talking points, including the accusation the president won't even use the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack". This is an outright lie.

During Obama's radio address on the attempted Christmas Day bombing, he used the word "terrorist" or a variation at least six times. It seems strange to me that Obama's detractors would make such a baseless and actually silly claim, so easily refuted, about such a serious matter. The writer should have at least troubled himself to look at the actual transcript of the speech instead of just recycling what other right-wing pundits have been saying. I guess it's easier to write a column if you don't bother to fact-check while writing it.

He wrote, " He didn’t grasp the seriousness of the situation, and he sped through a weak public statement that left too much unsaid so he could get back out on the golf course." Now, whether the president's statement was weak or strong is a matter of opinion. But the writer's implication that Obama was only interested in resuming his vacation is amusing, since he staunchly supported George W. Bush, who was infamous for taking regular (and lengthy) vacations even very early on in his presidency Oh, the hypocrisy.

He even accuses the president of giving the war on terror "back seat" status so he can focus on his "radical" domestic agenda. Again, we have an accusation being made with absolutely nothing to back it up. This seems to be his writing style – sling lots of mud and hope something sticks – reminiscent of other right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I will defend to the death this opinion writer's right to criticize whomever he wants to criticize. Unfortunately, when a writer is blinded by his or her own bias, it's all too easy to put words to paper without doing a thorough check of the actual facts of the topic at hand. This columnist is a somewhat competent writer, and it's a shame he chooses to throw around half-truths and misstatements of fact in his zeal to attack anything and everything Obama has done (or hasn't done).