While the Opinion Page, as the name implies, deals with opinions, to properly defend a position and to ensure creditability, a good newspaper needs to use accurate information. And as is the case in all aspects of journalism, a reporter or editorial writer is only as good as his sources.

Of course, good sources come in all shapes and sizes and sometimes they are international in scope.

The Oakland Press has continually expressed strong support for Israel and we base our information on very creditable and respected news sources.

For local information on Israel and just on matters related to the Jewish faith, we’ve frequently used the Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit, with offices in Bloomfield Hills.

Often, they refer us to other sources and we are confident those sources will provide the accurate information for which we are constantly seeking.

For example, last week the Council conducted its annual media luncheon in Detroit and its guest speaker was Gil Hoffman, chief political correspondent and analyst for The Jerusalem Post.

Hoffman’s credentials are impressive. He is well-connected to Israeli and Palestinian leaders and has interviewed every major figure across the Israeli political spectrum, has been interviewed by top media on six continents and is a regular analyst on CNN, Al-Jazeera and other news outlets.

Called “The most optimistic man in Israel” by Israel Television, Hoffman’s writing and TV appearances provide a behind the scenes look at the intrigue and humor in the Israeli political arena. Hoffman, who was raised in Chicago, graduated Magna Cum Laude from Northwestern University’s School of Journalism and wrote for the Miami Herald and Arizona Republic before moving to Israel.

A reserve soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesman’s Unit, he has lectured in seven countries and 36 U.S. states. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife, and two children.

If you want to discuss matters concerning the Middle East, you obviously couldn't find a better source.

Look for Hoffman’s comments in this Sunday’s editorial in the Forum Section.

Lee Keefer of Oxford wrote a very nice, detailed letter in response to my recent blog on how could The Oakland Press promote cohesiveness and not divisiveness in today’s society.

I discussed his views on impartiality on Wednesday. Now let’s take a look at his views on “unit cohesion” and “freedom of opinions.”

“...You asked the question, what can the OP do to ‘promote cohesiveness and a more harmonious society and still let people differ on their opinions.’ In the general sense, you must ‘clarify’ and not ‘magnify.’ I believe tabloids are best at magnifying people and events into comical or grotesque caricatures for sensationalist journalism.
“And that is what politics is all about — magnifying the differences between ourselves to such an order of magnitude that it no longer becomes ‘We the People’ but ‘The Enemy Within.’

“The OP editorials should delve broadly and deeply into the issues, and where applicable or needed, advocate a direction or solution that was derived from an open mind, a deep well of sincerity, and careful weighting of all sides and things considered.

“And that is no small task, but one filled with a deep sense of obligation and commitment toward the betterment of the community.

“I reference ‘unit cohesion’ in allusion to the Pentagon’s concern with the repeal of D.A.D.T. Whatever side you may fall on the debate, one has to respect the great weight and importance our military gives to the notion of unit cohesion. And therein I ask you — our newspapers and media — to dedicate yourselves with the same zeal and passion toward the unit cohesion of our community. Because it is very important.
“If a band of brothers will fight and die for one another, leaving no soldier behind, then what would that mean when our citizens act and feel the same? United we stand, divided we fall. Yet it would seem the political efforts are to drive us seemingly toward civil war, and the media a willing participant in magnifying that effort.
“We should both sit on the same side of the table, and on the other side of the table should sit the problem, because the problem is the ‘enemy.’ And when we start there, the mood and tone changes instantly...”

Again, Mr. Keefer, thank you for your straight forward comments.

I believe, in this respect, I agree with Mr. Keefer. And The Oakland Press has editorialized about bipartisanship and compromise.

However, it certainly is debatable how successful our editorials have been in driving this point across to our leaders.

As I said Wednesday and I’ll repeat it now, in our editorials we will strive to not widen any rifts that exist on an issue and we will try not to promote divisiveness but unity in the respect that all of us are in this together. It’s just easier said than done but we’ll keep working at it.

In response to my Friday blog, Lee Keefer of Oxford offered some insightful comments on how he felt The Oakland Press could best serve its readership through the Opinion Page.

Today and on Friday I will take a look at some of his comments and discuss them. I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact he took the time to write me and that he is allowing me to use his name. The creditability of a person’s opinions is always enhanced when the individual is not afraid to stand up and identify himself with them.
Mr. Keefer wrote, in part: “...I am not advocating for pure impartiality in the OP editorials. I do believe the OP editorials should be a place for well informed debate including advocacy — pro or con — on issues or events. However, I was writing in concern when Advocacy turns to Partisanship. And therein lies nuance and a rubicon — the point of no return.

“Partisanship, which is extremely tribal if not gang-like in nature, clouds our thinking and judgment. We begin to see things in events, actions or people that do not exist, or are distorted caricatures of reality. And I saw this in Executive Editor Glenn Gilbert’s diatribe against “Obamacare” and the BCBSM lawsuit (in a recent Sunday Oakland Forum column). Mr. Gilbert had crossed that line and had descended into politics.

“Our community needs you to be above that fray. My expectations of the editorials are for them to be filled with gravitas, as much as we expect the office of the President to be above the mud slinging and tribal politics. I look for statesmanship among our leaders whether that is at the level of national, state, local or community...”
Mr. Keefer makes some cogent points and is challenging us to live up to some very high standards. There’s nothing wrong with this. I don’t agree completely with some of his conclusions but that doesn’t mean I am saying he is wrong. He’s not. He’s expressing his views. Generally speaking, you don’t have to agree with a person’s conclusions but you really can’t argue with how that individual feels. That’s why it’s called an “opinion.”

The Oakland Press tries to focus on specific issues or topics when making a editorial decision pro or con. We have never intended to side with one political party or another, although on any given issue, that might appear to be the case.
Can we do a better job? Absolutely. And with loyal readers such as Mr. Keefer, we’ll continue to strive to improve.

We received an interesting criticism from a reader this week.

We’re used to be called a “left wing” or “right wing” newspaper because of some specific editorial stance or because one particular day we happened to run more letters from conservatives than liberals and vice versa.

As you should know from this column, we run the guest opinions and letters on a first come, first serve basis. Basically, we try to run every letter that meets our policy guidelines and we attempt to publish it as soon as possible.

However, this one particularly reader said he was concerned about us not being too liberal or conservative but rather, we weren’t middle of the road enough. It seems he believes that even though the Opinion Page is exactly that — opinion, The Oakland Press analysis pieces should be more balanced, giving both sides of a issue and trying not to take sides.

That is primarily the function of our news stories that appear elsewhere in the newspaper. All of our news stories are written with the idea that we get comments from both sides and not try to appear to favor one view over another.

On the Opinion Page though, that’s a requirement that normally is waived. Our editorials, using facts and hopefully logic, attempt to make a point and/or take sides.

But our middle of road reader seemed to prefer analysis pieces be very balanced and impartial.

We can agree that the information provided must be factual but to keep analysis, particularly those run in our Sunday Forum Section, completely impartial can be difficult. Most of the guest pieces we run are from groups that, admittedly, favor one side or the other.

An occasional piece that doesn’t draw a conclusion may be in order but that appears to be an unrealistic goal for most of the Forum pieces, guest opinions and columns.

The reader did have another interesting point. He said that running a liberal and a conservative columnist will give you the extreme views points but there’s no middle ground. He was saying that if people are always at odds with their views, how can you bring the country together to move forward. He said good newspapers should help smooth out divisiveness, not propagate it.

That’s a point well made. Admittedly, it would be nice if the country could come together more often and accept a person’s differences while celebrating similarities, desires and common goals.

It happens, but unfortunately sometimes not until there are dire circumstances. 911 brought most Americans together, briefly, and when remembered, it still has a tendency to heal wounds and be the basis for some consensus.

But, as the recent election indicated, there are too many people willing to drive wedges between Americans instead of promoting cooperation. So, maybe The Oakland Press should do more to try to bring Americans together. It certainly is a noble cause and one worth pursuing, when possible.

We’ve often published editorials urging compromise among our leaders but that seems, generally, very elusive at both the national and state levels of government.
However, I’m open to suggestions. What can The Oakland Press do, occasionally or regularly, to promote cohesiveness and a more harmonious society and still let people differ on their opinions?

Let me know what you think. Call me at (248) 375-5905 or e-mail me at allan.adler@oakpress.com.or just jot a note below.

Handling letters to the editor is one of my primary responsibilities at The Oakland Press and so naturally, talking with those who people who write the letters is a daily occurrence.

Many call to inquire where to send a letter or often they’re wondering when their letter will be published. Sometimes I have to explain to them why it won’t be published or why it was edited and/or trimmed.
Most of the people who write letters are reasonable, courteous and understanding. Their question or questions were answered and they’re ready to move on to their next submission.

During the “election season,” I usually handle a much larger number of inquiries then at other times of the year. One of the reasons for this is because people have submitted a letter pertaining to a pending election race that came in passed the deadline.

In the case of this Tuesday’s general election, I have had to explain — in e-mails and over the phone — why a writer’s letter couldn’t be printed.

Basically, experience has taught us that we need to put a deadline on election-related letters because we get so many and we don’t have the space to run them all. For Tuesday’s election, the deadline was last Wednesday, Oct. 20. Letters received by then were either published on the Opinion Page or put online on our website. We tried to process all of the election-related letters by Tuesday, Oct. 26.

For those people who missed the deadline, I have been trying to call and explain why their letter didn’t get in or be processed.

I’m happy to say most of the people understand and are very accepting of the explanation.

Some people have been particularly courteous — such as Pauline Woll, of Farmington Hills, who said she had worked diligently and revised her letter several times to get its length down to the required 250 words.

Walter Dilber of Groveland Township, a frequent letter writer, also was thankfully more than understanding. So were Henry Maloney of Troy and Linda Ulrey of Bloomfield Township, just to name a few.

I want to thank all of those people who submitted letters that were passed the deadline. It takes effort, time and dedication to write and send in a letter and so I appreciate all of letters I’ve received.

It’s particularly heartening to know that most people understand why the policies were instituted.

As I’ve said before and will undoubtedly say many many more times — it’s all in the name of fairness.