In a recent issue of The Explorer two letters to the Editor highlighted a disturbing trend in public thought - that we no longer need to be exposed to differing views. It was once an accepted standard that an unbiased press would print information and opinions on all sides of issues and fully-informed readers would exercise their own discernment. But two letter writers, obviously avid supporters of the current climate change theories, went far beyond disagreeing with an opinion column that didn’t agree with their views. They moved on to castigating the Explorer and the Editor personally because it/she dared to (in letter 1) “print such drivel” and (in letter 2) “print such paranoid drivel.”
I don’t disagree with the letter-writers right to get together and decide to label the column “drivel” or even “paranoid drivel.” But I strongly disagree with their assertion and obvious belief that The Explorer (or any paper) should limit what it prints to fit their idea of suitable content. Kudos to the editorial staff for even printing letters containing such paranoid drivel.
Dee Bethke, Oro Valley