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.