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.