Edgar Beem’s “Glen Beck, the ‘Libertarian Limbaugh'” in the July 31 Forecaster caught my eye; Beck and Limbaugh are familiar personalities that I occasionally hear on the radio. The headline implied there might be some discussion on Libertarian views etc. After reading the first paragraph’s quote of Beth O’Connor’s claim that President Obama is a Marxist, I expected some rebuttal or confirmation of that charge. But, the article seemed to be just an opportunity for Beem to vent and engage in name calling. He never attempted to present any facts that would refute Ms. O’Connor’s statement; but attempted to discredit her opinion because she is a waitress from Berwick, who (he believes) must have gotten this idea from Glen Beck. Does it matter where she got the idea? The article contained the following words: “stupid, evil, uneducated, weak-minded, blowhards, hot-air, sick, stink, wackos, selfishness.” There was no information to be used to weigh Beem’s opinion on a scale of objectivity or truthfulness.

Why would an editor publish such an emotionally charged, irrational dissertation? The goal certainly could not be an attempt to score a political point. Is it to generate interest in the newspaper by inflaming emotions? I hear that newspapers are desperately trying to stay alive in today’s “electronic” world. Is this an example of being desperate?

Truth being the most powerful tool of humanity, I am disappointed to see articles selected for print that make no attempt to determine the truth; but just add fuel to an emotionally fueled argument.

 

John Porter
New Harbor