As might be predicted, one of the heavier responses we’ve received to our editorials has and is occurring in reference to the Islamic center/mosque piece we ran last week.
To refresh your memory, officially known as the Cordoba Initiative, members of the Islamic faith want to build a mosque and Islamic community center that is proposed for construction just a couple blocks from near “ground zero” in New York. Our editorial reasoned that unlike most building construction issues that are solely of local interest, this plan has national significance because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They didn’t just affect New York but sent shock waves throughout the United States and the world.
Based in New York, Cordoba officials say they want to improve relations between Islam and the West by hosting leadership conferences for young American Muslims and organizing programs on Arab-Jewish relations, building civil society in the Muslim world and empowering Muslim women. Cordoba purchased the property for $4 million and plans to build a 13-story, $100 million Islamic center, of which the mosque would be a part.
Our contention is that although they have a right to construct the center on the site, out of respect for those killed in the attack, Islamic officials should choose another site. We also noted that moderate Islamic leaders have frequently condemned terrorist attacks but rarely do much else. Paying lip service is OK but talk is always easier and cheaper than action.
In reference to the mosque/center, the editorial notes that here’s some action they can take that would show they do understand and want to live in peace with their non-Muslim neighbors.
The emotional topic drew mixed responses from readers. Some, in fact, most, agreed with the editorial, stating it shouldn’t be built at the present location.
Some readers, citing religious freedom and other reasons, disagreed.
And that’s fine. We don’t expect everyone to support or agree with the stance of an editorial.
It’s OK to disagree. We appreciate the feedback and more important, we appreciate the response for the simple reason it shows the editorial was read.
I’ve said it before and I will undoubtedly repeat this in many many blogs — the editorial and pretty much everything else on the Opinion Page is just that — opinions.
We all have a right to our own opinion and what makes America great is that people can express their views without retribution. Let’s hope that is always the case.

In deciding upon what position The Oakland Press is going to take on an issue, the Editorial Board frequently must wrestle with the problem of appearing to be hypocrites or at least inconsistent.

For example, let’s discuss the issue of federal bailouts. The board generally wasn’t crazy about the Wall Street bank bailouts and particular the bonuses that were approved for executives. Admittedly, the bonuses were authorized by the individual banks and there is a legitimate concern about the government over stepping its bounds. But the bonuses are an insult to all those hard working Americans who have lost their jobs because of the recession.

However, The Oakland Press has supported and praised the loans issued to General Motors and Chrysler companies. The Editorial Board felt that to let the companies die would be a disaster to the state.

Some readers, despite the looming financial consequences, felt the bailout of the auto industry was unwarranted and that The Oakland Press was being hypocritical. Their position was that if you’re against bailouts for the banks, then you should be against bailouts for the auto industry.

However, the board felt this was a matter of practicality. The car industry loans certainly did save many jobs, both directly related to the auto companies and thousands of peripheral jobs of people who depended upon the car companies.
It was a judgment call, as many things are in journalism.

Obviously, consistency is always good if it’s possible. The Oakland Press has consistently been for balanced budgets and fiscal restraint. Of course, that’s rather easy.

Also, we’ve been consistently for interfaith and inter-cultural understanding. Only through mutual understanding will we ever overcome the extreme prejudices and hate that in the world. But even here we’ve been accused of being inconsistent. Most recently the charge popped up because of our position that we oppose construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque near Ground Zero. We’ve been accused of being against freedom of religion and separate of church and state.
Our position is that we understand that the backers of the project have a right to build there. We just think it would show sensitivity to other religions and the victims of 911 if they decided to build elsewhere. Are we hypocrites? I hate to say this but it’s a “judgment call.”

Some think it would be wonderful if everything in life was black and white or right and wrong. But most of us know that’s not the case. Gray areas are also popping up, especially when dealing with government.
We do the best can and we’re always open to suggestions. It would be nice if the criticism was not so venomous sometimes, but we understand that emotions can run high on any given topic.

So, continue to let us know how you feel about editorials or anything on the Opinion Page. If you can do it courteously and calmly, we’d appreciate it.

Last week I discussed The Oakland Press endorsement policy, which can get complicated in our effort to be fair to the candidates and informative to the readers.
One of the first decisions also is one of the toughest — in which races to endorse candidates.

The criteria is somewhat lives. We have to look at not just the significance of the race, but how contested the position is. Editorial Board members ask ourselves, is this a race where our readers would like us make a selection?

In some cases, the answer may be obvious. For example, selecting either the Republican or Democratic candidate for Michigan governor — Rick Snyder and Virg Bernero — is probably a no-brainer. That’s an important position and the winner of this race must try to lead the state out of this extended recession. It won’t be easy and success is never guaranteed, no matter which candidate wins in November.
But in the congressional races, the decision whether to endorse or not becomes much more difficult, depending upon the race.

For example, most likely we will select one candidate in the 9th District race. This contest pits Republican Rocky Raczkowski of Farmington Hills against incumbent Democrat Gary Peters of Bloomfield Township. The rhetoric in this race has been ongoing since Peters was elected in 2008 in a district that historically was Republican-dominated.

But another congressional race that we may not make an endorsement in is the 8th District seat held by U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, whose district includes much of north Oakland County. Rogers, in a worst case scenario, will be running against a write-in candidate. As the incumbent, Rogers would probably defeat an official candidate who was selected in the primary. But currently, it would take some kind of political miracle for a write-in candidate to beat Rogers. Consequently, there’s probably no need to go through the endorsement process in this race.

This November’s ballot is so jammed with races that few newspapers, if any, could conceivable try to endorse in all of them and do candidates and their readers justice.
So, as often is the case in journalism, who to endorse and in which races comes down to a judgment call. We won’t pretend to always be right but we do try to always be fair.

And we’re always open to suggestions from our readers. What criteria do you think we should use in selecting races for endorsements?

The primary election was just conducted but we can’t take any time off to celebrate our hard work.

Preparation for the general election in November must begin immediately. One of the many tasks that The Oakland Press Opinion Page must prepare for is the endorsement of candidates and ballot issues.

Logistically, we can’t endorse in every race. There are too many races and too many candidates. The traditional procedure is to first decide in which races we will endorse a candidate. We usually select the more heated, tightly contested races because they are often harder to call and the readers seem to value our opinion, even if they don’t agree with it. Candidates who are running unopposed or in races that appear to be easy to call normally don’t need our endorsement and we don’t have time to endorse in every race.

We’ll decide shortly what races we will be endorsing in. The next step is to schedule appointments with the candidates. It may be convenient and time-saving to schedule at the same time those running against each other in the same race. But experience has taught us that this can be a scheduling nightmare. So, we try to find mutually convenient times for the endorsement interviews. After all of the interviews are conducted, the Editorial Board will compare notes and decide which candidates we will endorse.

Our deadline is not Nov. 2, the general election day. Most people want to know well ahead of time who The Oakland Press is backing. So we try to run the endorsement editorials no later than a week before the election. The size of the editorials will vary. In some cases, we’ll endorse in two or three or more races in the same editorial. For example, we may decide to run all our Congressional endorsements in one editorial. On the other hand, we will have an editorial about just one race, mostly the more contested or major races. For example, we’ll probably use one editorial to endorse a gubernatorial candidate.

The endorsement process is complicated and time consuming, so we can’t dawdle. But in the final analysis, remember that endorsements are an opinion, one that is made after considerable discussion and analysis but still an opinion.