Life's Phases

New email address, new post

2011-08-24T15:31:00.000-07:00

This is the first blog under my new primary email address and so I'm continuing to move on to the next phase of my life.

As with anything new, the uncertainty that lies ahead can be a bit disconcerting but the positive excitement and anticipation of the good things that are to come far out weigh the negative.

Please, I want this to be an interactive blog, so let me know what you think. Do you agree, disagree or think I'm just full of baloney?

Each phase of our life offers a variety of learning experiences and varied adventures. So, this blog will address a myriad of topics, situations and events.

Let's make this blog an open book. I'll discuss any topics or subjects that are reasonable and clean. This is a G-rated family blog. If you want PG-13 or worse, go the movies or watch late night television. For that matter, not-so-late-night TV can be pretty raunchy sometimes.

Writing should be a fun adventure. In the words of Star Trek's Captain Jean-Luc Picard, let's "make it so!"

Saying Good Buy

2011-08-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

This is harder than I ever imagined to say but I want to let all my readers know that this is my last blog as The Oakland Press Opinion Page editor.

I was told that it was a corporate decision to eliminate Opinion Page editors in Michigan and Ohio.

I want to thank all of you for following me. Please look for my personal blog that I will establish in September.

Editorial ideas come from many sources

2011-08-04T08:34:00.000-07:00

Normally, editorials are written based on news stories that have been published a day or two or earlier than the Opinion Page piece.

But sometimes we push the envelope on this policy and actually write an editorial based on a direct interview or discussion with a source.

Such was the case, as I’ve highlighted last week, with Israeli Reporter David Bedein.

Occasionally, visitors will come in with news — and supporting documentation — that just screams for an editorial, even if we passed on writing a news story about it.

In addition to Bedein, we’ve done editorials based on visits with such social agencies as the Salvation Army, Common Ground and governmental groups.

The first editorial we ever did supporting a new international bridge between the metro area and Canada came after a visit with representatives of several groups and government agencies that were promoting its construction.

And while we’re on the subject of pushing the editorial envelopes, throughout the year we also write about the major Christian, Jewish and Muslim holidays.

They may not be earth-shaking or eye-opening but they do tend to remind people of why they are getting those holidays off or why their neighbors may not be going to work on a particular day.

The Oakland Press also prides itself on doing upbeat editorials that, if nothing else, just gives credit where credit is due. Those pieces don’t necessarily have to be critical of a person or a group.

So, you see, editorials can come in all shapes and sizes and view points but one thing is constant, they have to be based on good, solid information.

As the old journalistic axiom goes, “we’re only as good as our sources.”

Israeli reporter was an excellent editorial source

2011-07-28T09:34:00.000-07:00

One of the most solid news sources The Oakland Press has been fortunate enough to have worked with is Israeli investigative journalist David Bedein, who we discussed Monday.

For this past Sunday’s editorial on the Palestinian Refugee camps, Bedein sat down with The Oakland Press Editorial Board and literally spread out on a table his information on the camps and the Hamas ties to them.

Some Hamas documents blatantly admitted the terrorist group’s ties to the camps, officially run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

Bedein didn’t just throw out theories and speculation, he had hard documents to back up every statement and allegation. He also had maps that supported his view that the refugees were being told that they would eventually be moved back to their ancestral homes in Israel. Many of those homes no longer exist and to resettle in Israel would literally mean killing Jews, but that doesn’t seem to be much of a qualm for Hamas.

The journalist even had current Palestinian road maps that accurately showed the highways throughout the area.But one thing missing — the designation of Israel as a nation.

And the money for all of this activity comes in large part, from the United States.

You may not like what Bedein revealed but there is no way you could argue with his facts.

That’s why we wrote the editorial.

Good sources are key to accurate editorials

2011-07-25T11:45:00.000-07:00

Just like good news stories, accurately written editorials also require good sources.

Israeli investigative journalist David Bedein is an example of one of those sources. He was used in writing yesterday’s (Sunday, July 24) editorial on Palestinian refugee camps and the possible influence that the terrorist group Hamas has on them.

You could say he is prejudiced because he is from Israel but he also keeps a close eye on the Israeli government and is the essence of what a true, ethical journalist should be.

Just look at some of his credentials.

Bedein is a community organizer by profession, a writer, and an investigative journalist. In 1987 he established the Israel Resource News Agency, with offices at the Beit Agron International Press Center in Jerusalem. He serves as director of the Center for Near East Policy Research.

He has also reported for news outlets such as CNN Radio, Makor Rishon, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jerusalem Post, and the Jewish World Review. For four years, Bedein was the Middle East correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin, writing 1,062 articles until the newspaper ceased operation in 2010.

Bedein has covered controversial Middle East negotiations in Oslo, Ottawa, Shepherdstown, The Wye Plantation, Annapolis, Geneva, Nicosia, Washington, D.C., London, Bonn, and Vienna.

Also, he was active in the Israeli peace movement for 17 years and has overseen investigative studies of the Palestinian Authority, the Expulsion Process from Gush Katif and Samaria, The Peres Center for Peace, Peace Now, The International Center for Economic Cooperation of Yossi Beilin, the ISM, Adalah, the New Israel Fund, and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

Say what you will, you can’t argue with his accomplishments.

We would love more readers like Florence

2011-07-21T11:28:00.000-07:00

Florence "Peggy" Anderson of Waterford Township is a feisty octogenarian who is probably one of the most loyal Democrats the party would ever want.

She is adamant and outspoken about both local and state Democratic political figures and issues. And she’s rightfully proud of her strong views. While that’s enough to qualify her as the subject of a news story, that’s not the reason I’m writing about her.

Amid all of the bluster that she can produce in support of her views, she is truly one of the most open-minded and fair individuals I’ve ever met.

Oh, she will argue or fight hard for what she believes in, but she also will respect an opposing view. She may not agree with you but if you present your side logically and fairly, she will accept your position.

In other words, she is the ultimate example of a person who believes in freedom of speech.

I respect and admire her for many reasons. She’s experienced much in her 85 years on this earth. Born in St. Joseph County, about 30 miles from Kalamazoo, Florence, as she says I can call her, grew up on a farm.

“My parents were democratic farmers, they were Soapy Williams fans,” she says. “I was a depression kid, born in 1926. My grandmother made our clothes but we had food because we grew all our own and we raised chickens.

“We didn’t have electricity or running water and burned wood to stay warm. We pumped our water with a wind mill.”

Florence certainly knows what it means to get a long on less and is obviously no stranger to hard work.

Her first job was at age 9 on a mint farm, where she worked for $1 a day. She still had to go home and help milk the cows.

In high school she took a Commercial Education course and graduated at age 16.

She got a job with the War Department, working from 1943-46. She came to Pontiac in 1946 and married her husband, Bob, in 1947.

They remained married for 60 years, until Bob’s death about four years ago. They had two sons, four grandchildren and she was blessed with her first great grandchild when she was just recently at age 84.

She and her husband moved to Waterford in 1972. Florence is a retired state employee who worked at the former Clinton Valley Center. She also worked for six years for the Pontiac School District.

She says she is a decedent of George Read, one of the signers of the Constitution and so politics runs deep in her family.

“I really think that I was born with political genes,” she says.

In a time when I have received so many calls from readers who have threatened to cancel their subscriptions because they don’t like a particular view expressed on the Opinion Page, Florence has been wonderfully refreshing.

She’s not afraid to let us know when she thinks we’ve missed the mark on an editorial. There have been times when she has loudly and at length told us why a particular editorial was just not right.

But by the same token, she will call and let us know — in equally vibrant and vocal terms — if she agrees with an editorial or likes a particular feature that was published.

She scolds us when she thinks we’ve erred but praises us when she believes we’ve done something good. And most important, whether she agrees with us or not, she continues to be a loyal reader.

What more could we ask for, other than to have a few thousand more subscribers like Florence.

Feds no help with medical marijuana law

2011-07-20T07:29:00.000-07:00

Medical Marijuana continues to be in the news and the developments continue to prove that we are right in our editorials that call for the state to clarify the regulation.

While well-intentioned, the law is difficult to enforce because of the confusing and conflicting regulations.

It has created conflict between local law enforcement agencies, who only want to make sure the substance doesn’t fall into the wrong hands, and proponents of medical marijuana, whose goal is to relieve the pain of people suffering from chronic illnesses.

Neither side is wrong. You can’t blame the police for wanting to keep the substance out of the hands of young people and those who aren’t legally entitled to use it. And you have to sympathize with those distributors who are merely trying to help ailing individuals.

What continues to be ironic is that the state law conflicts with federal regulations against the use of marijuana.

So, what’s typical is that the recent response from Washington that was supposed to clarify the situation — didn’t.

In a policy memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole at the U.S. Justice Department, it was stated that “people who cultivate, sell or distribute marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law.”

Thank you Washington.

Again, it just shows that the state legislature is going to have to clear up the confusion over medical marijuana distribution.

Readers have options for expressing their views

2011-07-18T07:30:00.000-07:00

Readers sometimes seem to be a bit confused about the difference between the Sound Off column items and regular letters to the editor.

Both are ways people can express their views but there is one major difference. We require letters to the editor to be signed and we run the name of the home town of the author. Also required is such information as telephone numbers and specific home addresses. We don’t publish the latter information but we do need it for our records.

On the other hand, Sound Off callers don’t have to leave anything but their home town. The anonymity obviously makes these individuals feel more comfortable than those writing letters.

It’s always good when people stand behind their views by allowing us to run their name and home town. But by the same token, we understand the desire of some readers to remain anonymous.

There are some benefits if people wish to sign their letters. They get up to 250 words to express their views while Sound Off callers are allotted only a few sentences.
Also, it’s more likely that the letter will run sooner because we run letters daily while the Sound Off column appears only on Saturdays and Mondays.

You can argue which option to a reader is better — staying anonymous with Sound Off items or writing a letter to the editor. But the bottom line is that we have readers who support each one, so we try to accommodate.

Class reunions show that age is very relative

2011-07-14T07:17:00.000-07:00

Class reunions are very common this time of the year and so earlier this month we gave a “Thumbs Up” in our Darts and Laurels column to the Pontiac Class of 1951, which observed its 60th class reunion.

It was felt that 60 years is an exceptionally long time for people to maintain such high school relationships, even if they are only renewed briefly every five years.

However, as we found out, the Class of 1951 isn’t the only one that is proud of its longevity.

Thanks to the Darts and Laurels feature, we got a call from Ellen Reynelles of Pontiac, who informed us that her Class of 1936 was going to celebrate its 75th reunion tomorrow (Saturday, July 16) at Ginos Restaurant in Keego Harbor beginning at noon.

She rightfully noted that although the Class of 1951 deserves credit for its 60th reunion, “the class just sounds so young to us in the Class of 1936.”

I can’t argue with that. When Ms. Reynelles class graduated from high school, the Class of 1951 members were just 2 and 3-year-old toddlers.

Ms. Reynelles says the Class of 1936 originally had about 300 members. She says there are 16 members who are known to still be alive and may attend tomorrow’s reunion.
However, after all these years and with their classmates in their early 90s, they have simplified the party.

“We don’t buy green bananas, so no reservations have been made,” Ms. Reynelles says. “We’ll just order from the menu.”

The focus obviously is not on the food but on socialization and camaraderie.
In fact, because all of the class members don’t want to waste time or miss out on keeping up with their high school friends, they’ve changed the reunion format a bit.

“We used to just meet every five years but these later years we’ve decided five years is too long, now we meet every year,” Ms. Reynelles says.

May they continue to meet for many more years.

Saturday feature offers short, pointed opinions

2011-07-13T06:44:00.000-07:00

The Darts and Laurels feature of The Oakland Press is a small column that appears on Saturdays.

But it seems to have some big readership — and we’re glad.

For those of you have haven’t noticed, we run four, one or two sentence items with a “Thumbs Up” or Thumbs Down” icon. As they imply, we’re saying that something is good or bad. It’s a short, brief way to give credit where credit is due or to scold a person or a group that we believe deserves chastising.

The items that draw the judgment were stories that appeared sometime during the past week or occasionally, the week before. They don’t have to be front page stories, any item in the newspaper on any page is fair game for inclusion in this feature.

For example, someone convicted of a crime would, understandably get a “Thumbs Down.” Sometimes we give the negative digit to groups, such as municipal governing bodies that don’t seem to act in the best interest of its citizens. For example, if we had a story on a government unit wasting tax dollars, then it would get an appropriate “Thumbs Down” on Saturday.

More common, however, are the “Thumbs Up.” You’ll easily notice that of the four items presented, usually only one is a “Thumbs Down” while the others are “Thumbs Up.” The positive gesture is given to individuals who have earned special honors or done something outstanding or groups that have similar claims to fame.

We usually don’t hear from readers unless they adamantly disagree with one of our items or if they believe we left someone or a group out that deserves recognition.

On Friday I’ll discuss how one positive item has led to a second, equally positive one because of reader feedback.

Some requests we can't accommodate

2011-07-11T10:25:00.000-07:00

I frequently get calls from people wanting to get a letter into “tomorrow’s newspaper.”

Their reasons are legitimate enough. Usually their topic involves some breaking news or something that is happening two days from now and they want to get a one-day jump on it.

While we like to accommodate, most of the time we have to say that we can’t do it.
Although The Oakland Press is a daily newspaper, some pages, such as Opinion Page, must be processed early so that the entire paper meets all of its publishing deadlines.

The Opinion Page is usually laid out two days ahead of time. Some times the pages are put out even earlier. It makes it easier for the copy desk to efficiently process all of the news, features and sports pages.

Admittedly, we occasionally can substitute a last minute editorial and we do make corrections on the next day’s page. But to place a letter on the page would involve literally tearing it down and rebuilding it, a time consuming process that involves several people.

Normally, a letter to the editor doesn’t get published for a week or two, depending upon when it came in and how many letters must get in before it.

But even if there were good reasons to get a letter received one day in the next day’s paper, for logistical reasons, we are forced to decline the request.

Some forget it's OK to disagree with an opinion

2011-07-07T11:15:00.000-07:00

I received an email this week from a reader, now an ex-subscriber, who said he was canceling his subscription because he didn’t like an opinion that was published on the Opinion Page.

Now I’m the first to concede that I can’t argue with someone’s opinion, although I don’t have to agree with it.

But it does frustrate me when people use the lame excuse that they don’t like an opinion expressed to cancel the newspaper.

The Opinion Page is just that — a forum for opinions. Our readers have varying and often diametrically opposing views on various subjects. The Opinion Page is intended to be forum for the readers to express their views.

We try to run the opinions as they come in but we can't orchestrate when we get them and what we get. So, sometimes we get letters in favor of a certain issue and none opposing it. That doesn't mean we're taking sides, it only means those are the only views we've received to date. Normally, opposing views are eventually submitted and run in as timely a manner as possible.

Consequently, if any member of a specific group wishes to express an opinion, we'll be glad to publish it, provided they are residents of Oakland County and meet the other, basic requirements, such as the 250 word length, no use of profanity, etc.
Occasionally we will run opinions from people outside the county but because of space limitations, we must restrict the opinions published.

The balance in a newspaper comes in the stories that are on the other pages and how they are written, not on the Opinion Page. The balance on the Opinion Page comes in trying to publish all views in as timely a manner as possible, even if you disagree with the views. Some people seem to forget they are opinions and that's what the page is called - The Opinion Page.

One of America’s basic rights is freedom of speech, which means people have a right to disagree.

If you must cancel your subscription, cancel it because you don’t like the stories that are published or the cost of the publication.

But to cancel the newspaper because you disagree with what one person may have said on the Opinion Page just doesn’t make sense. It’s almost un-American because people are entitled to their opinions.

Join our Presidential Twitter chat

2011-07-05T10:45:00.000-07:00

Please join me online at theoaklandpress.com at 2 p.m. Wednesday, July 6 for a live chat about President Barack Obama’s Twitter Town Hall meeting.

If should be definitely interesting. The President will take questions via Twitter and answer them verbally.

During the meeting you will be able to discuss with me how the town hall session is going. Do you like what he is saying? Do you think he is gaining any more public support, etc.? It will be a very open format on The Oakland Press website. You can chat questions and/or comments. I’ll respond and give you some insights of my own.
The President’s Twitter account has 2.25 million followers. We can’t come close to that, although the Oakland Press does have over 5,300 and I have about 815.
Getting a question through the President will be probably harder than winning the lottery. Your chances are much better with getting a message to a staffer at The Oakland Press — and we’ll appreciate it more!
To join the chat, go online to theoaklandpress.com and click on the news section and look for the story about the President’s Twitter town meeting.

While White House has regularly communicated via Twitter, this is the first Twitter town hall. It may be a big bust but we’re going to look in and follow it and we hope you will too.

Some letters we just can't publish

2011-06-30T12:20:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press prides itself on being a forum for its readers.

So, we try to run almost all of the letters to the editor that we receive.

As I’ve stated, we publish them on a first-come, first-serve basis. We attempt to get them in as soon as possible but space is limited and so there’s usually a backlog of letters of one or two weeks. Sometimes longer.

We’ll make every effort to get letters to conform to the requirements. The limit is 250 words and so those that are longer will either be trimmed by us or by the author.
But there are some letters that we just must reject, usually because they are too insulting and often blatantly racist.

Generally, letters to the editor must not contain profanity. Just one or two words could be edited out but a letter that is filled with vulgar epithets is not worth the editing effort.

Sometimes letters get too personal. We can sympathy with someone who is going through some difficult times but repeating their troubles in a letter to the editor isn’t quite appropriate. For example, we get letters from people being evicted or who are having tough financial or health problems. We sympathize and, where possible, refer them to other sources, such as social services agencies.

Admittedly, sometimes they tell us their troubles to make a point about an issue or situation. In such cases, we may relent and run that letter. Sometimes it’s obvious and the letter is just too personal. Sometimes it’s a judgment call.

Occasionally, the letter is not just too long but ridiculously extensive. Letters must be around 250 words and the guest opinions can go 550 to 660. Guest opinions, by the way, are restricted to those who have some expertise on a topic. And we’ve also allowed politicians to write guest opinions by virtue of their positions. But some letters are literally a 1000 words or more.

We also turn down letters that make false accusations or use incorrect facts to make a point.

Considerable effort is made to work with a letter writer to make his opinion piece conform to the policy and ultimately get printed.

But sometimes, even with a concerted, substantial effort, the letters must be rejected.

Balance is always our goal

2011-06-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press Forum Section appears weekly on Sundays.

There’s a reason it consists of four pages while during the rest of the week, we have only one Opinion Page each day.

Sunday is The Oakland Press’ largest circulation day and through the Forum Section, we can provide more, balanced letters and guest opinions to our readers.

Notice I stress “balanced.” As I mentioned Monday, the Opinion Page strives to provide a balance of opinions — conservative and liberal. From an editorial standpoint, we are probably more conservative, although many readers will contest that statement.

But the most important thing is to try to provide a balance of opinions in the Forum section. For example, normally on Page 3 we run columns from Walter Williams, a conservative, and Leonard Pitts Jr., a liberal. It would be fantastic if they each wrote on the same topic but that’s almost impossible to coordinate. However, the two definitely support and express often diametrically opposite views.

As far as letters to the editor go, if we have them, we will run those with differing opinions on the same topics in the same section. Normally, however, getting such balance in one edition is difficult because we run the letters as they come in. What normally happens is several letters may support a particular topic and then we’ll get several opinions opposing that same subject. Consequently, the balance may not come in that section but should come over a period of time and editions.

The same is true for the Forum Front page feature, which can come from any number of sources — The Associated Press, the Cato Institute or other news syndicates. Here too, the balance may not come within a particularly section but over a week or two.

The balance isn’t perfect or equal. Some times we run more conservative pieces, sometimes more liberal.

You can debate which we run more of but the important fact is we do try to provide a balance.

Editorials don't have to be critical

2011-06-27T11:26:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday in our Forum Section, the editorial was a very upbeat piece on Oakland County Community College.

We’ve editorialized about the educational institution a number of times over the past few years and the reason is because it deserves the credit.

This particularly time it appeared in our Forum Section, which is four pages of opinions as opposed to the one page every other day of the week. I’ll discuss the Forum Section in a little more detail on Wednesday but what I want point out now is that the Sunday editorial was very upbeat — and rightfully so for OCC. But I’ve received comments from many people who seem to think that editorials must always take a stance and should be about much more serious topics. Well, while I respect their opinions, I, along with the Editorial Board, must disagree.

Especially for The Oakland Press, we like to give credit where credit is due. So occasionally we will run an editorial that basically praises the action of someone or group as opposed to just criticizing them.

It’s not necessarily a unique concept but it is one we like. Certainly, there are many serious topics that we could discuss in an editorial. That’s part of life. But also part of life is a brighter and generally happier or positive side. Everything on the Editorial Page, like in the newspaper, doesn’t have to be negative.

Giving special credit to such well run and managed colleges as OCC gives us a chance to shine a positive light on such institutions. It allows us, basically, to give credit where credit is due.

The upbeat editorials don’t have to be limited to groups or organizations. We frequently spotlight individuals, often elected officials, who have, in the view of the Editorial Board, some special praise. That doesn’t mean they will avoid future criticism.

The positive editorials are example of the balance we try to provide, as a newspaper, on our Opinion Page.

There’s not just bad but also good in our society and in our role as an information source, we take pride in being able to point this out.

Newspaper space is always at a premium

2011-06-23T07:03:00.000-07:00

I receive frequent requests from those who submit letters and guest opinions to be more flexible with the word limitations. Letters are restricted to 250 words or less and guest opinions must be between 550-600 words.

Limited space is the main reason for the cap on such pieces. But I also get frequent requests from people who would prefer to write a guest opinion as opposed to a letter to the editor.

Again, the reason we limit guest opinions is a lack of space — there’s only so much room on a news page. But in so doing, we also have established a policy of when to approve a guest opinion and when a letter seems most appropriate.

Guest opinions are reserved for people representing a specific group or who might be considered experts on the topic about which they want to write.

For example, a school superintendent would be granted a guest opinion is he wanted to discuss school financing or problems or issues associated with his school system. He would be considered an expert because of his high position in the district.
Likewise, we might grant a guest opinion to a financial expert talking about retirement funds or a Congressman or state representative talking about a bill or pending legislation.
Along this line, we generally try to offer our elected officials, from those on the local level to those in state and federal government — a chance to discuss a bill or topic that may be in the news.
Also, we would grant a guest opinion to someone who is an officer in some group or organization or a representative of a group.
Again, because of space limitations, we can only run one guest opinion per month per writer. Also, when politicians are involved, we request that the piece be written solely about a brewing controversy or specific topic. We don’t want the guest opinion to turn into a political campaign piece.
Space is always the reason for any word limitations or for allowing people to write just letters and not guest opinions.
But amid the constant problem of no space, we do try to be fair. So, we try to be as flexible as possible within the perimeters of the Opinion Page.

I’m always open to suggestions — and we would try to institute any “reasonable” ones.

Please, let me know.

Most blogs aren't news stories

2011-06-22T09:03:00.001-07:00

There’s been a request to explain the difference between a news story and a blogger.

It should be rather obvious but for those who might be confused, a news story is supposed to be written impartially, giving both sides of an issue and not inserting the opinion or opinions of the writer, normally a reporter.

A blogger is basically an online columnist who is discussing a specific topic but normally from his perspective. He doesn’t have to be impartial or give both side of an issue. His blog is usually his opinion, although he may also utilize facts in expressing it.

This may be a rather simplistic explanation but it’s about as accurate as you’re going to get.

The Internet has opened up so many new realms of possibilities for writing that definitions continue to be given and then revamped.

Because a blog or blogger usually expresses an opinion, readers must be careful not to misinterpret the writing as a news story.

I would think most people looking for basic information on a topic would prefer to just go to a reliable news source.

I would suggest checking out The Oakland Press website for straight news stories. We also have a long list of bloggers if you want to get a different perspective on various topics.

Numbers point to support of the new bridge

2011-06-20T15:32:00.000-07:00

Last week I talked about the controversial new bridge project, which would be a second span connecting the metro area with Canada.

Opposition is coming primarily from one source, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge.
I suggested that The Oakland Press can “follow the money” as to who would oppose the project but until we’ve seen some more evidence that it is wrong for Michigan, we’re going to support it.

One person commented that he or she wanted “to see the money.”
Well, here is some information on how the bridge would be financed and why it is needed.

Probably the biggest selling point for the project is that the Canadian government has offered to pay the $550 million cost of the work. Once constructed, its operation is expected to be supported through tolls.

Discussions on the bridge date back to 2004, when an international partnership conducted a feasibility study and determined there is a need for a second bridge serving the border between Southeastern Michigan and Southwestern Ontario.

The Canada-U.S.-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership consists of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation.
The economic numbers involved are staggering. The bridge would bring an estimated $1.8 billion in investment to the Detroit-Windsor area, create 10,000 construction jobs in Michigan and generate another 30,000 indirect jobs in Michigan and Windsor.
From just the auto industry, every day the combined U.S. and Canadian auto sector sends thousands of cross-border truck shipments and more than $100 million in goods across the border.

These are just some of the numbers that impressed the Editorial Board and prompted it to support the bridge project.

We still haven’t seen any convincing numbers, i.e. reasons to oppose the structure.

Less is definitely better in journalism

2011-06-16T12:25:00.000-07:00

When is enough words enough?

That’s been a classic question from students since teachers first gave out written assignments.

Young writers always ask how long do you want this essay to be? Teachers, not to disappoint, usually give them a length — one page, two pages, 1000 words, etc.
However, as you grow older, the answer sometimes changes, particular for young writers who go into journalism.

By college, the stock answer to how long should an essay be is usually “as long as you need to cover the topic.”

Particularly in journalism, brevity is normally preferred. That’s because newspapers have limited space and so the more news they can put in a paper, the better job they do at informing their readers. And to put more news in an edition, stories need to be written as concisely as possible.

In fact, this desire to put as much news in a story with as few words as possible spawned the inverted pyramid style of writing, a basic for newspaper writers. Briefly, this style requires reporters to put the most important information about a topic or an issue at the beginning of a story so that if the piece has to be cut to fit a limited amount of space, it can be cut from the bottom and thus still tell the reader what happened or give him information.

Obviously, there’s much more to be taught about this style of writing, which why journalists normally go to school for four years.

Sooner or later most journalists realize that, under this type of writing style, much can be said in a few words or sentences.

With this as a background, I’m going to respond, generally, to a request from one of my frequent guest opinion writers. She asked if sometimes I could bend the 600 word rule and allow her 700 or 800 words. She seemed to feel 600 words wasn’t enough to make her point.

While sometimes more detail is preferred on a topic, generally, we’ve found that less definitely is more. Sometimes people, particularly letter writers, object to our 250 word limit for them. They say they can’t express what they want to in so few words.
However, experience has taught me that for purposes of trying to make a point, an opinion can easily be expressed in 250 words and more than enough information can supplied to back up a view in a 600-word guest opinion.

To be fair to all of those people who submit letters and guest opinions, I have to take a relatively strong stand on the 250 word and 550-600 word limits, respectively.

Fortunately, the guest writer understood our situation, as do most people who submit pieces to the Opinion Page.

Board needs more proof bridge is bad idea

2011-06-15T09:44:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned Monday, sometimes we have to repeat a stance on an old issue because it is in the news again.

That was the case with the helmet law editorial Friday and it’s also the case of the international bridge editorial, which we have supported in several editorials over the past few years.

Editorial Board members were pleased to see Gov. Rick Snyder get behind the project. From all of the information we’ve received over the past few years, it appears to be a very beneficial project for not only for Southeast Michigan but for the state.

The current ad campaign against the bridge is well-funded and may be convincing some people to oppose the project. It hasn’t convinced the Editorial Board.

Using the “Follow the Money” theme, the person or persons most hurt or negatively affected by the new bridge would be the Moroun family, owners of the current Ambassador Bridge. The family reportedly is financing the negative ads. We can understand why they would oppose a new bridge because they fear it will affect their profits. However, information we’ve received indicates there is a need for two bridges and so the Moroun would still make money.

For now, based on the reliable information the Editorial Board has received and the rather biased — and understandable so — data from opponents of the new bridge, The Oakland Press continues to support the project.

However, if the board sees impartial evidence that there would be more harm than good to the public, members are not opposed to altering their original position.

Clearly, in this case it’s “Don’t show us the money — we can follow that” but rather “show us the proof.”

Sometimes, we have to repeat ourselves

2011-06-13T11:59:00.000-07:00

The editorial Friday opposing the proposed bill to lift the state helmet requirement for some motorcyclists was not new.

In fact, we’ve written several times in the past about the subject and we’ve opposed it each time.

The Editorial Board decided several years ago that lifting the ban just didn’t make sense. The decision was based on facts we had reviewed about the increase in deaths in states where the helmet law was lifted and also we reviewed statistics on the massive medical costs to treat those cyclists hurt but not killed in an accident.
Some of the information used in the editorial had been used before but it was still pertinent.

The point is that sometimes some version of past editorials must be repeated to remind people — particularly legislators in this case — that what they are doing doesn’t appear to be in the best interest of the general public.

It may be redundant but it’s part of our effort to discuss and give readers our opinions on subjects that are currently in the news.

We do, from time to time, change our stance on a subject, although we don’t like to do it very often. But if, in obtaining new information, we see where our original position on an issue may not be incorrect, then we are not too proud to admit our mistake and change our views.

Remember, we are only as good as our sources and the board is composed of individuals who are human — we’re not perfect.

'Special' letter writers deserve to be in the spotlight

2011-06-09T10:48:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, you don’t hear about a person until he or she dies and there’s an obituary about the individual in the newspaper.

That’s OK. Some people want it that way. They just haven’t made the local news headlines. That doesn’t mean they haven’t lived an exceptional life and don’t deserve some recognition.

I find this to be the case with a number of regular “special” letter writers — special at least to me. I’ve grown to know and respect them. They aren’t public figures but they write regularly and have strong opinions. Yet they understand the basic and critical role of freedom of speech. They respect other people’s opinions, even if they don’t agree them. That’s a trait that is easily expressed but hard for many people to follow.

One of these special individuals is Ed Sornig of Waterford Township. Ed writes regularly — sometimes too regularly, submitting two or three letters a month when he knows the limit is one per month! But he says writing them is a great release for him. So, I don’t mind reading them and letting him decide which one he wants in print.

Recently I received a letter from Ed that unfortunately I can’t print in its entirety because it’s a very personal account of himself. The rule is a bit flexible but basically we accept letters to the editor discussing a specific topic or issue, not a personal accounting of one’s life.

However, Ed has lived a life that many people might envy and most reasonable people should admire.

He and his wife, Betty, have been married for 54 years. They’ve raised 10 children and have 29 grandchildren and one great grandchild.

In recent correspondence, the religiously oriented man expressed pride — as he should — in having had a lifelong relationship in which both partners remained faithful to each other.

The retired autoworker stays active, you might expect, with such a large family but also is an avid reader of The Oakland Press. He wants to stay informed and also enjoys and appreciates, as we’ve mentioned, the opportunity to express his views in a letter to the editor.

Ed has had his illnesses over the years and recently was told by his doctor that his physical condition is failing. The doctor said he didn’t know how long Ed had but that there wasn’t much the physician could do for him.

Ed’s letter to the editor was a personal expression of his views and his life in the wake of this news from his doctor. He also gave some tips for living and some sound advice.

Over-all, the letter illustrates Ed’s buoyant, upbeat and outspoken yet congenial personality and his thankfulness for what he sees as having lived a full life. His letter reads, in part:

“...I always prayed that I would live long enough to see our children’s children. I have been granted that. My life is drawing to an end. I was told by doctors that there is nothing to prolong my life. They don't have a crystal ball to tell me how much longer I'm going to live. So, I'm going to live my life like I always have, knowing each day could be my last. I have had more blessings then I ever dreamed of. It has truly been a wonderful life...
“...My wife and I have laughed and cried together many times. You know that song, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy?” Well, that's how I feel about life. I never saw anyone get better by worrying. Prayer is still the best healer...
“...The question I am always asked it that are the 10 children a “Yours, Mine and Ours situation?’ I say ‘No, they are just ours.’ People then say ‘are you out of your mind?’ I would say, ‘maybe but I'm happy.’
“...My life has been like a roller coaster with it’s ups and downs. But it’s been a great ride!”

Ed, it’s great to know you. Please, keep those letters coming.

There's a difference between news, opinion pages

2011-06-07T13:57:00.000-07:00

It’s time to repeat a message that I’ve tried to get across to many readers over the past few years — there’s a difference between the Opinion Page and the regular news pages.

Many people realize this but unfortunately, many do not.

I constantly get letters saying they don’t like an editorial or a guest opinion or a column on the Opinion and demand that those pieces be written in a more objective, balanced style. Well, that defeats the purpose of an opinion page.

As the name implies, the page is meant to be a forum for people to express their views. They don’t have to give both sides of an issue, although they do have to support their positions with facts.

In a newspaper, balanced, impartially written stories go in the regular news sections. They must be unbiased and written, as much as possible, in a fashion that gives both sides of a story.

That’s not the case on the Opinion Page. Individual articles don’t have to be balanced in the way they are written, they can be prejudiced in favor of a certain position or point of view.

The balance on the Opinion Page comes in trying to run as many diverse opinion pieces as possible. For example, we run liberal columnists Leonard Pitts and E.J. Dionne on the Opinion Page but we try to balance them with commentary from such conservative writers as Charles Krauthammer, Walter Williams, Cal Thomas and Deroy Murdock.

Please remember — you don’t have to agree with every letter or column that appears on the Opinion Page. It’s someone’s opinion. You’re entitled to disagree and urged to write a letter saying so.

Newspapers must play dual roles in society

2011-06-02T10:31:00.000-07:00

Part of the The Oakland Press community service program is providing frequent mentoring sessions to young people.

Students from various schools throughout Oakland County come into the office to learn about newspapers — not only the business aspect of the industry but also from the standpoint of a newspaper’s civic duties.

This past week we had ninth-graders from Pontiac High School and the International Technology Academy in Pontiac.

We discussed two main aspects of journalism.

Obviously, from a pure business standpoint, a newspaper is established to make a profit.

But there’s an equally important role it must play in a free society. A good newspaper is the medium by which people get well-written, unbiased and accurate news stories. A well-informed public is the best way to maintain a nation’s freedoms.

Our Founding Fathers realized this when they put in the First Amendment — not the second or third — freedom of the press. They realized that without a free press providing information to the public, a free nation would not exist for very long.
Adolph Hitler knew the importance of the press and that by controlling it, he could manipulate the people and keep his ruthless power.

Newspapers and other media are by no means perfect, but the good ones are constantly striving to provide information to the public in stories that are accurate, balanced and impartial.

In speaking to the Pontiac students this past week, I instructed the young people to get a good education, set long and short term goals and never stop seeking knowledge. I told them this not only was a requirement for a successful career but it was an obligation as a citizen of the United States.

Only through an informed elector that knows how to make intelligent decisions can America stay free. To get the information they need, individuals must also learn the difference between good and bad news sources.

It can be a judgment call but believe it or not, most newspapers and other media do want to fulfill the basic tenants of good journalism.

A newspaper needs to make money or it can’t stay in business. But also, a newspaper must place top priority on informing it’s readership through accurate and impartially written stories. It needs to establish and maintain creditability. If it can’t do this, it shouldn’t and won’t be in business.

Breaking news can change editorial run dates

2011-05-31T09:14:00.000-07:00

In my last blog I discussed the federally mandated switch from flashing red to flashing yellow traffic signals.

I challenged you to read the original story, which ran Sunday, May 22 and draw some conclusions of your own. Then, compare them to the analysis The Oakland Press did in its editorial.

The date that this editorial is scheduled to run is Thursday, June 2. Even though this is only two days away, I have to caution you that this is a tentative date.
One aspect of the Opinion Page is that sometimes we have to substitute scheduled editorials for last minute ones because of breaking news.

For example, last week we substituted an editorial on Thursday, May 26, about Gov. Rick Snyder’s tax plan because the governor signed it on Wednesday, May 25. His signing of the bill into law was the current news event that prompted the editorial.
Also last week, we substituted the originally scheduled editorial for Friday to discuss the Chrysler Corporation’s repayment of its government loans.

As with any good organization, we plan our editorials ahead of time but being in the news gathering business, we have to be flexible to accommodate breaking news.
Last week’s two substitute editorials were unusual. Normally, we have one a week and of course some weeks, we can plan a head and not make any changes.

But it doesn’t matter. The most important thing is to get you the news and editorial comments in as timely a fashion as possible.

An editorial to look forward to

2011-05-26T13:56:00.000-07:00

The main purpose of this blog is to give you a behind scenes look at The Oakland Press Opinion Page.

Usually, that means explaining why we ran a particular editorial or why or why not we ran a guest opinion or letter to the editor.

Most of the topics of this blog are in the past tense, particularly when it comes to editorials. However, there’s one editorial coming up in the next week or two (I haven’t set a specific run date) that I want to discuss today. It concerns the switch from flashing red traffic signals to flashing yellow.

We ran a story in Sunday's paper. In the editorial I will review the change over and offer some comments and perspective about the switch.

The federal government is mandating change and of course, is leaving most of the cost of the switch to local road commissions.

Unfortunately, there’s a big difference between a flashing red and a flashing yellow.
With a flashing red left-turn signal, motorists are allowed to complete their turns during breaks in oncoming traffic, which has a green light while the left-turn signal blinks red.The flashing red then turns to green to allow an uninterrupted left turn, then becomes yellow before turning to a solid red to stop motorists while traffic in the opposing lanes goes through its own cycle.

With a flashing yellow arrow signal, the cycle is reversed.
Motorists in the left-turn lane are given a green arrow to complete their turn uninterrupted at the start of the cycle. The light then blinks yellow while oncoming traffic is given a green light, still allowing motorists turning left to make their turn during breaks in oncoming traffic. It then stops blinking and turns red for the left-turn lanes, stopping motorists so traffic in opposing lanes can go through its own cycle.

I can almost guess your response but I'd like to know more specifically. Please, read the story (or reread it), which appeared on the front page of last Sunday’s paper (May 22). Then, take a look at the editorial when it runs. I’ll let you know exactly when in a blog in the next few days.

Most of our editorials are based on topics that have had news stories written about them. So, let’s have some fun. After reading the Monday story, let’s pretend you have to write an editorial. In it, what conclusions would you reach and observations would you make about the change over?

Let me know in a comment at the end of this blog or even in a letter to the editor. My email address is allan.adler@oakpress.com.

Let’s see if your conclusions are the same or similar to The Oakland Press editorial.

Don't forget reason for this holiday weekend

2011-05-24T07:30:00.000-07:00

It should come as no surprise to you that this weekend is Memorial Day weekend. It’s the unofficial start of summer but more important, it’s a time to honor our military veterans.

Yes, the three-day celebration includes picnics, summer outings and barbecues but it also includes parades and ceremonies, most on Monday, that pay tribute to our fallen heroes.

Every year we do a Memorial Day editorial. Some times we run it on Memorial Day, other times we pick the Sunday before. This year the editorial is running on Sunday, May 29.
It talks about the history of the holiday and its purpose is to urge you to remember our veterans.

The editorial is a bit redundant. We try to update it yearly but it basically says the same thing. Normally in journalism, we try to avoid redundancies but sometimes it’s important to repeat a message and this case, also give thanks.

We believe you can’t thank our veterans enough for keeping America free and allowing us to celebrate picnics, cookouts, etc..

So, we’re going to be redundant in this blog, too.

Take a minute during this weekend and attend a special service honoring our veterans. There are numerous ones planned, mostly on Monday, and the Oakland Press will be running throughout this week a calendar of events.

If you can’t attend one of these programs in person, then at least take a moment during the weekend, as you celebrate summer and all of the activities that accompany it, and give thanks to our veterans for keeping us free.

$4 a gallon gas has readers fuming

2011-05-19T14:21:00.000-07:00

Gasoline prices have topped $4 a gallon and while the skyrocketing surge seems to have slowed, at least for now, there’s no guarantee that the budget-busting cost explosion won’t take off again — for who knows what reason.

The sticker shock at the pump has many average income citizens reeling — the prices are just horribly high for most drivers.

Those writing letters to the editor aren’t afraid to say that and they are also questioning some of the reasons oil industry experts are using to justify the rapid increases.

Logic does make you wonder if the oil companies are trying to cover up what many readers see as the real reason for the hikes — greed?

There is justification for such skepticism. One of the many excuses given for the price increases is the rising cost of a barrel of oil. But often the cost of a barrel of oil and the price at the pump don’t coordinate very well. For example, when the barrel price rises a dollar or two, that same day the pump cost can jump as much as 10 or 20 cents. However, when the barrel price plummets — such as it did recently, going down $10 to $12 a barrel — the per gallon price didn't move.

To some, it seems the oil companies are defying that old physics theory of what goes up, must come down.

Although angry, consumers are stuck with buying gasoline for their vehicles. Alternative modes of transportation, such as the electric car, are too expensive for most people. Sure, there’s also bicycles and other vehicles but nothing has been developed yet that is as efficient as the internal combustion engine.

What is particularly galling to many readers is that when the experts don’t have the price of a barrel of oil to blame, they seem to find a myriad of other excuses. A potential, not real hurricane in the gulf; the unstable political conditions in the Middle East; the list goes on.

Many readers seem to want to scream “stop, just tell the truth, oil company executives want to throw a party in Cancun and so they need some extra cash.”

Average citizens, of course, don't know exactly why gas prices rise, they just see the results in what they pay at the pump. And the media is only as good as it sources. In this case, the oil experts.

The free enterprise system has made America great and no doubt will help us prosper in the future. But when it comes to the price of gasoline, many people are wondering what really is at work here. Is it the basic law of “supply and demand” or is the more selfish rule of “greed and gouge?”

What do you think?

Readers get one letter per month

2011-05-18T09:33:00.000-07:00

In answer to a probing question from an inquisitive blog reader, you see letters to the editor from the same individuals over and over again because readers are entitled to one letter per month.

The blog comment was “why do we see letters (voice of the people) from the same people over and over? I see Bob Frick’s name on a weekly basis. Surely you have other letters from other people you could print...”

I seriously doubt that the person commenting sees a letter a week from Mr. Frick, although he is a one of our regular writers.

The Oakland Press Opinion Page, as I’ve previously stated, is meant to be a forum for its readers. Admittedly, many readers would love to get two or three or more letters in during any one month.

So, we’ve established the policy, which has been in effect for many years, of giving each reader one letter per month. To make it easier on us, we make that a calendar month. Consequently, someone could have a letter on April 30 and one on May 1 and be within the policy. Of course, we would not run any more letters from that individual for the rest of May.

Sometimes, yes, when we get a flood of letters, some one may get in earlier than he or she should. We try to avoid this but we’re only human.

Quality staffers backup Opinion Page

2011-05-16T11:18:00.000-07:00

I’m back.

And no, that’s not reference to the scary Hollywood movie, although readers have said my blog may be a little frightening, sometimes.

After being on a medical leave for several weeks because of hand surgery, I have resumed my full range of duties, including giving you these behind the scenes looks at The Oakland Press Opinion Page. I had carpal tunnel surgery on my right hand, which, obviously, made it difficult to type and use a mouse.

In my absence, Editorial Assistant Chris Laine did a yeomen’s job of handling the letters to the editor, guest opinions and laying out the Opinion Pages. The time-consuming jobs involved not only editing the letters and processing them for publication but also contacting the authors to ensure they indeed, sent in the correspondence.

Meanwhile, reporter Jerry Wolffe handled many of the editorial writing duties although this function is often shared by others in the editorial department, including Executive Editor Glenn Gilbert, political reporter Charlie Crumm, Presentation Editor Roger Wingelaar and Automotive Editor Joe Szczesny.

Good backup is always key to the success of any organization. The Oakland Press is blessed with many quality personnel who have had to, from time to time, take on extra duties and functions that in the past were normally not even part of their job descriptions.

As with many businesses today, versatility has become a primary job skill at The Oakland Press.

A 'driving question' gets answered

2011-04-19T21:11:00.000-07:00

Well, I’ve got some good news. I’ve found the answer to that driving question I raised a couple week ago.

To refresh your memory, I queried that if you are driving the speed limit in the fast lane on a state highway or expressway, is it illegal if you are delaying some drivers who wish to go faster?

The question arose not because people enjoy utilizing the left hand traffic lane but with Michigan’s crumbling road system, many drivers are doing many things to save their vehicles from potentially hundreds of dollars worth of car repairs.

Alert drivers try to straddle pot holes or even swerve to avoid them, obviously a dangerous act, depending upon the traffic volume.

When on our freeways and major highways, there appears to be more rugged roadway in the right-hand lanes. The passing or fast lane is often in a little better shape than its sister lanes.

This created an interesting legal question. To avoid the bone jarring and body shaking experience not really desired in a drive on the highway, many people are moving over to the fast lane.

They are driving the speed limit but is it legal? Driving over the maximum speed limit certainly is asking for a ticket. But, if you hold up an impatient driver, can you get a ticket?

The answer, according officers with The Oakland County Sheriff’s Office is no, it is not illegal.

If there are only two lanes, courtesy would dictate moving over to the right hand lane but on a three-lane highway with the lanes going in the same direction, if you’re doing the speed limit, then it’s OK to use the fast or left-hand lane.

So, go ahead and drive in that lane at the maximum speed if you believe you can avoid the ruts, potholes and other menaces of our deteriorating highway system. Make sure it's not a construction zone. There you have to show down.

Also, you probably will tempt the wrath of drivers who do wish to speed. Beware of various verbal assaults and hand signals from them showing their displeasure. But if they must pass you, then let them breeze by and chance getting a ticket for speeding.

'Fairness' goal of election letters policy

2011-04-13T12:46:00.000-07:00

For those who haven’t heard, there are elections in Oakland County on May 3.

That date is not the usual one for elections. Most people expect to head to the polls in August for primaries and in November for general elections.

But this May 3 there are a number of communities and school districts where voters should go to the polls. There’s even an election for county commissioner. The winner fills the partial term left open by Bill Bullard Jr. in District 2, when he became county clerk.

There’s a commissioner race in Bloomfield Hills, balloting proposals in Clawson, Ferndale and Hazel Park as well as school board contests in Lake Orion, Fenton and Goodrich, among other communities.

So, with each pending election, The Oakland Press Opinion Page letter policy kicks in.

It’s quite simple: Letters relating to the May 3 school elections must be received by Tuesday, April 19. Those received by then will be run Tuesday, April 26. Endorsement letters must be 150 words or less.

We have used this policy for the past several years because prior to its institution, we ran election-related letters up to and on the day of the election. That, however, caused problems. Basically, the issue involved “fairness,” something I frequently talk about in this blog.

People would purposely hold their letters until the last minute hoping to get them in on election day or just the day before. They, of course, took a chance the letter couldn’t get in at all but they took the risk. And many letters did “seem” to get the last word in on a candidate or ballot issue.

Of course, this drew complaints from readers whose letters appeared several days before the election or that couldn’t get in by election day.

The blanket complaint was that it “wasn’t fair.” Well, we agreed that, although it’s never been proven that getting the last word in on a ballot proposal swayed other voters, it didn’t seem fair to run a letter for or against an issue on election day.
So, we came up with this policy. We publicize it frequently on the Opinion Page several weeks before an election, although we still get complaints from people who say they didn’t know the policy.

Well, with all do respect, read the paper — the message is in, if not every day, then at least several times before the election.

By setting a deadline of two weeks before the election for letters, we normally can get in all of them in the few days after the deadline. And no letter will run on the day of the election or up to about a week before.

It seems like a “fair” policy. If someone has any suggestions for improving it, please let me know.

National columnists add variety to the Opinion Page

2011-04-07T08:48:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press, as hopefully you’ve noticed, runs a number of nationally syndicated columnists.

These are individuals who have earned recognition nationwide for their writing and their views. They are often employed by national publications and are allowed to offer services to other subscribing newspapers. Their columns usually run after they’ve appeared in their home newspaper. Many you probably know by name, even before reading their pieces on the Opinion Page.

Currently running on a weekly basis are such individuals as D.J. Dionne, Charles Krauthammer, Leonard Pitts and Walter E. Williams or Cal Thomas.
Dionne, considered a liberal, runs on Saturdays, and Krauthammer, a conservative, runs on Mondays. Pitts, a liberal and Williams or Thomas, both conservatives, run usually on Page 3 of the Sunday Forum section.

Note the balance — one liberal and one conservative? That’s what we strive for when presenting views on our opinion pages. It is a newspaper’s responsibility to present opposing views and try to balance one side against another, where possible.
Also, other national columnists that we run from time to time include Donna Brazile, Delroy Murdock, Dan Thomasson, Bonnie Erbe and Betsy Hart. These individuals offer a nice range of conservative and liberal views that may be of interest to our readers.
Yes, at one time, we ran Ann Coulter, a conservative, as well as liberal Bill Press. We discontinued running both because of the large number of complaints we received from readers. Both individuals were considered just two extreme by even people who called themselves conservative and liberally, respectively.

We put a priority on local letters to the editor and local guest opinions but we offer the national columnists to provide a perspective that many readers also want.

We, of course, are still taking calls on all of the national columnists and so the liberal-conservative, conservative-liberal mix is constantly changing. But the goal doesn’t change. We want to offer our readers a variety of opinions, just as we offer them a forum to express their own views.

'Bill' — Leave a contact phone number

2011-04-04T06:47:00.001-07:00

This is to "Bill," who left a message on my voice mail Monday morning and wanted to know why his Sound Off items weren't being printed.

He said he has called the Sound Off Hot Line several times over the past few months and none of his comments have appeared in print.

Well, the only information "Bill" left me was his first name. Had he left a telephone number, I would have been glad to call him back and discuss his problem. We probably could have worked out a solution or at least figured out why his items weren't being published.

Sound Off, for those of you who aren't aware, runs Saturdays and Mondays on the Opinion Page. It allows people who don't want to be identified to express an opinion and have their views appear in print anonymously. We only run a home town. In fact, people who call into Sound Off don't even have to leave their names. The number, by the way, is (248) 745-4646.

This is as opposed to letters to the editor and guest opinions, correspondence that requires signatures. We never run phone numbers with letters but we do run names and homes towns. As for guest opinions, we run a brief sentence or two describing who the author is and we will run a contact phone number if that individual requests it.

So "Bill," if by some chance you read this,(or if a friend of yours reads this) call me back and leave a phone number. I promise I won't publish it but I will call you back and try to figure out what happened to your opinions.

A concise letter is better than a wordy guest opinion

2011-03-31T08:18:00.000-07:00

A classic example of people believing, often incorrectly, that bigger is better, are the letters to the editor and guest opinions submitted to the Opinion Page.

For letters, our limit is 250 words and many writers say they can’t express their full and true opinion with that limited amount of space. When they hear about guest opinions, which can be up to about 600 words, they immediately want to write one.
First, and most important, almost every opinion can be expressed in 250 words or less. It just takes some concise writing and editing.

However, as you know, we do run guest opinions, which allows the authors to go into detail on why or why not they favor or oppose a particular issue.

We’re pleased that readers want to write and get their opinions published. As I’ve often stated, the purpose of the Opinion Page is to be a forum for readers and local residents to express their views.

However, because of the large number of letters and requests for guest opinions and our limited space, we’ve had to establish some firmer rules and regulations for guest opinions.

Generally, guest opinions are granted to individuals who have some expertise on the subject that they want to discuss. For example, a school superintendent writing about a district budget would be an appropriate guest opinion.

Also acceptable would be a local community leader writing about controversial issues in his area or a state representative discussing proposed legislation.
The list of appropriate guest opinions could be quite extensive but I think you get the message.

Also, a few years ago, we offered political leaders the opportunity to write, no more than once a month, a guest opinion about issues brewing in their areas. Of course, when dealing with politicians, we have to insist they keep their guest opinion to a specific topic and not turn it into a “vote for me” piece.

Admittedly, there are some guest opinion writers who may not seem to have particular expertise on a topic but we still grant them the space. They are normally people who have been writing for years and are generally grandfathered in.

There is one alternative for people who want to write longer letters than 250 words. These often end up being 400 or 500 words in length. We can put them online on our website. Fortunately, the Internet has an infinite amount of space. So it can accommodate the longer letters. However, most people usually want to see their correspondence in print, not just on the web.

It would be great if we had the space to allow everyone who wanted to, the option of writing a guest opinion instead of a letter. But we don’t. Admittedly, some of the rules may be loose and sometimes items are run as guest opinions that should have been kept to letters. We make mistakes and we are always reevaluating our policies.

We constantly strive to achieve two basic goals: We want to continue to be a forum for the opinions of our readers and we want to be fair in doing so.

“Fair,” obviously, can be a relative term. But we’ll keep trying.

The "driving" question of the day

2011-03-30T07:35:00.000-07:00

Michigan’s crumbling road system has drivers doing many things to save their vehicles from potentially hundreds of dollars worth of car repairs.

Alert drivers try to straddle pot holes or even swerve to avoid them, obviously a dangerous act depending upon the traffic volume.

When on our freeways and major highways, there appears to be more rugged roadway on the left lanes, probably because they are used more. The passing or fast lane is often in a little better, if not a lot better shape than its sister lanes.

This is creating an interesting legal question. To avoid the bone jarring and body shaking experience not really desired in a drive on the highway, many people are moving over to the fast lane.

They are driving the speed limit but you have to wonder, is it legal? Driving over the maximum speed limit certainly is asking for a ticket. But, if you hold up an impatient driver, can you get a ticket?

I have contemplated this question since my drive into work this morning. Don’t worry, I will do more. I’ll check with our local law enforcement officials and get back to you.

In the meantime, what do you think? Would you travel in a fast lane, at maximum posted speed, to save your car some damage but risk the wrath of a speeding driver?

It's been an Academic March Madness

2011-03-23T12:44:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press this past week sponsored an event that offered suspense, some drama and plenty of keen competition.

For me, it was the second activity of the month that was part of would I call Academic March Madness.

No, this past Sunday wasn’t a sporting event, although the competition can be just as intense as a game in the popular NCAA March Madness Basketball Tournament.

The contest I’m talking about is much more cerebral than basketball but that doesn’t mean it takes any less amount of skill and preparation.

The Oakland Press Regional Spelling Bee was conducted with 93 youngsters competing from throughout Oakland County.

The Bee was at The Oakland Intermediate School offices and saw the young spellers go more than four and a half hours, with Mahati Vavilala finally being declared the winner. It took almost 20 rounds for the Novi Middle School eighth grader to outlast her opponents.

I was the chief judge and one of three for the contest. As I’ve written, I was honored to be a judge for the Auburn Hills Optimist Club Oratorical Contest earlier this month.

I’ve been a spelling bee judge for the past several and helped out in some way since The Oakland Press started sponsoring the regional spelling bee in 1995.

Every youngster was a winner Sunday because they had to be the top speller from their respective elementary or junior high school to advance to regional competition.

For Mahati, there’s much more excitement coming her way. As a regional winner, she advances to the Scripps National Spelling Bee in Washington D.C. June 1-2. There are cash and merchandise prizes for youngsters who finish at all levels but the top prize is a not too shabby $30,000 scholarship.

It’s a fantastic experience for a youngster and his or her family. I was fortunate to be able to cover the national bee for several years in a row and the contest is conducted in an exceptional manner. It’s well organized and one wonderful feature, the youngsters are treated to outings in the Washington area. Although competition is only two days, the youngsters usually arrive the previous Sunday and spend a terrific week sightseeing and enjoying our nation’s capitol.

Yes, there’s a lot at stake, as I’ve mentioned, from the $30,000 top prize cash winnings all the way down. And consequently, there’s a lot of studying to do. To prepare for even the regional level, students normally study daily for several hours.
No doubt all of the national contestants, which will number around 350, will spend a good portion of their week studying for the competition.

But all of the spellers would be wise not to just focus on the bee. They should remember that they will be competing against the best of the best and they should take solace in knowing that where ever they finish, it was a terrific accomplishment.
Also, if the spellers and their parents are smart, they’ll make the most of the opportunity to see Washington.

Being a contest judge can be educational

2011-03-17T10:17:00.000-07:00

There’s a wonderful benefit I receive as an editor with The Oakland Press.

Every year for the past 17 I’ve represented the newspaper as one of three judges at the annual Auburn Hills Morning Optimist Club Oratorical Contest.

The competition is fascinating and impressive as boys and girls, generally in grades 7-12, give speeches before fellow contestants, judges and an audience of parents and Optimist Club members. Each year the topic is different. This year's was "If I were the leader of the free world the first issue I would address would be...." I have yet to judge a year when all of the youngsters weren’t competitive, making the selection of a winner very difficult.

Eight boys competed last week, March 10, and eight girls went head to head this past Thursday. The top-three winners are given medals with the youth who finished first moving on to the regional contest.

This is not an easy competition. It takes a lot of courage for these young people to get up and give a speech that is not only logical and makes a point but also presented with various emotional innuendoes and nuances. The more skilled a contestant is at the latter, the better are his or her chances of winning the local contest and moving on to higher levels.

But you have to be proud of all the young people for just standing up before an audience and giving their speech. They are setting the stage for personal success later in the life. They are taking on a challenge — in this case speaking before a group of people — and they are winners by the mere fact they did it.

The first time I served as a judge was in 1994, when my boss asked me to take his place because he had to back out due to another commitment. I wasn’t quite sure what I was getting into but it didn’t take long to realize how honored I was to be associated with the contest.

From a longevity standpoint, my 17 years is soundly eclipsed by another judge, George Cartsonis, who has been serving as a representative from Oakland Community College for 27 years. This year’s third judge was Judy Martin, of Oakland University.

Over the years, I realized that as judges, we weren’t doing too bad a job. Many of those who we selected as local winners went on and did well in the advanced competition. In fact, last year’s girl winner, Malanie Grant, won the regional contest in Southfield and took top honors at the state level. Besides the wonderful experience, Malanie also brought home a $2500 scholarship.

I've learned a lot serving as a judge. I have been fortunate to realize we have many good young people who will be growing into very solid citizens. They will be conscientious about their environment,their careers and their communities.

Because the Optimist Club is a morning group, the competition begins at 7:30 a.m. I have to admit at first, I wasn’t real excited about starting my day at that early hour. But I soon realized it’s not a hardship. Besides, the Optimists provide a very tasty continental breakfast — and great company to enjoy it!

So, you might ask, what does this have to do with the Opinion Page? Well, in my opinion, our society could use more groups like the Optimist Club and more competitions like the oratory contest.

Some letters have to go online

2011-03-16T07:45:00.000-07:00

I’ve mentioned in previous blogs that I’ve got a backlog of letters to the editor and guest opinions.

Well, as hard as a I try, because of space limitations sometimes I can’t get them all on the published Opinion Page.

But I do have an option — I can put them online.

Most people, understandably, prefer to have their letter printed in a regular edition but sometimes it’s just not possible. So, instead letting the letter languish for several more weeks — to the point where it is completely outdated — we place the letters online.

I keep the letters usually at least two weeks but sometimes if a writer is discussing a topic that already is old or will be outdated soon, that letter also goes online.
Usually, the topic in a letter going online already has been written about by another writer whose letter did get published, so the topic isn’t completely ignored, it’s just we couldn’t get all of the letters in.

Because the time element can make a letter grow outdated so quickly, the only alternatives are to just not run it or put in online. One benefit for putting the letter online is that it can run in its entirety. A 300 word or larger letter often must be cut before it can get printed. The limit is 250 words. But because there is basically unlimited space on the web, I will run the long letter without trimming it, unless it had inaccurate and libelous information.

So, going online Thursday at theoaklandpress.com will be letters from the following writers: Alexis Allum, Leonard; Jim Head, Oak Park; Rev. James E. Fleming, Rochester Hills; Walter Sobczak, Novi, Allison Sandvig, Waterford; Jim Nowka, Northville; Elise Payton, Farmington; Joel King, Oxford; Stew Wasson, Highland; David L. Wisz, Birmingham; Mark Wagner, Rochester Hills and Tracy Thomas, Commerce.

Sent in your views but not in a form letter

2011-03-10T15:56:00.000-08:00

We are proud of the commitment to do everything within our power to publish your letters to the editor, provided they meet the basic standards of about 250 words, no foul language and no libelous statements.

But there is one type of letter that probably won’t get printed. In fact, we’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t even bother to send it.

That’s the form-letter, usually written by some public relations person for a certain group and then individuals sign it and send it in. From time to time, I get these form letters. They’re letters not only talking about and backing the same subject but they are written almost exactly the same — same sentences, same wording.

They’re usually pretty well written but they are also bothersome and time consuming.
Realistically, there’s no way any newspaper would publish the same letter five or 10 or more times and just have it signed by a different person.

No newspaper has that kind of space and most readers wouldn’t bother with them.

Form letters that I receive from outside our coverage area are relatively easy to handle — I delete them.

But form letters from readers and individuals without our coverage area aren’t so easily managed.

That's because The Oakland Press cares about its readers and does want to serve them and provide a forum for their views. Consequently, I usually try to respond to them and let them know we appreciate their efforts in sending in the letter but we won’t run it in its current, copied form.

As I usually say in a note to such individuals, “this letter appears to be copied, almost word for word — rearranging the paragraphs or adding one sentence of your own is not enough — and technically this could be considered plagiarism.” The latter term has prompted several heated responses from people who are incensed that we won’t run the letter and insulted that we said it bordered on plagiarism.

Well, technically, it does. When you put your name to someone else’s writing, that’s plagiarism.

To further back up my point, Webster’s New World dictionary defines plagiarize as “...to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one’s own.”
Of course, the writers aren’t going to be sued or taken to court — at least not by The Oakland Press. But I hope we get our point across.

And the topics don’t matter. Whether the letter is for or against abortion or for or against Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget, if we get more than one letter written with exactly the same wording, they won’t run.

Sometimes the writer argues that while he didn’t write the letter, he agrees with what it states. That fine, that’s his right. But to submit it as a letter to the editor and sign his name to it won’t get it published.

Ironically, some people are so outraged that we won’t run their form letter that they write back and in several paragraphs explain why we should. What I usually tell them is that their response by my note is what we’re looking for in a letter to the editor — an opinion expressed and written in the author’s own words. If they would have just said that initially instead of sending in the form letter, their views would be well on the way to being published.

Letters to the editor don’t have to be written in perfect English or in Pulitzer Prize-winning fashion. They only have to be views expressed in the author’s own words.

Feature takes aim at any group or individual

2011-03-03T13:53:00.000-08:00

Regular readers of The Oakland Press have probably noticed the “darts and laurels” feature on our Saturday Opinion Page.

We also refer to the column as our “thumbs” feature — for obvious reasons. We give thumbs up and thumbs down to individuals, groups, communities and/or organizations. Anyone and anything is fair game.

The only basic rule is that the accolade or criticism has to go to a person or entity that was written about, usually during the previous week.

Generally, the “thumbs up” items don’t draw much dispute. It’s hard to criticize some one who wins an award or a group that has raised money for a charity. Probably the only negative statement is that some items that deserve the extra spotlight don’t get in because we can only run a total of four each week. And usually we try to throw in at least one thumbs down. These latter items are the most difficult because what one person considers negative action may be deemed appropriate by someone else.

For example, some one convicted of a serious crime deserves a thumbs down, to say the least. And there are many criminals who fall into this category who escape the digital rating because we just don’t have space.

But what about city council that closed the local library because of a lack of operating funds? Should it get a thumbs down for closing such a popular facility? Should it get the negative assessment because it couldn’t find other areas of the budget to trim?

Maybe, however, the council deserves a thumbs up for being fiscally prudent and balancing the budget. This is one area so subject to debate and opinion that rarely do we chastise a city for taking such action.

On the other hand, we might give a well earned downward pointed thumb to a city council that cut library funds but went on a junket to Florida. Still, even here it’s sometimes debatable. Maybe the trip was for a seminar that taught city council members how to budget more prudently.

A number of readers have called the Saturday feature a “thumb sucker,” saying it really has no news value because all it does it repeat something that happened earlier in the week.

Likewise, many readers like the feature and even more respond when they disagree with a thumbs down.

For those who want to be reminded, The Oakland Press is reader driven and we try to provide subscribers with what they want.

And based on this policy, the darts and laurels column will be around for a while.

There's a backlog of letters

2011-03-02T08:51:00.000-08:00

The fact I receive letters daily is not news — that’s part of the job.

But the volume of letters often differ, as you might expect, depending upon what’s happening in the news.

Generally, I tell readers that their letters, provided they meet the basic standards, will be published in a one to two weeks. This normally gives me time to fulfill my commitment. But sometimes that one to two week window isn’t enough.

That’s why I’ve decided to write in this blog, from time to time,to give you an update on the letters to the editor situation.

As you may have guessed, one of the reasons for this particular blog is that I’m falling behind on my letters. Issues in the news are consuming a large percentage of the letters I receive. Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget is by far the most popular topic. This can be broken down into letters concerned about the proposed tax on pensions to correspondence asking the governor not to cut education spending or revenue sharing for local communities.

Some letters discuss other topics, such as health care, the deficit, etc., but by far, at this time, the governor’s budget is the most written about subject.

Because there is a time element to these letters, I have put somewhat of a priority on getting them in. Letters about clean energy, abortion and government waste will have to take a back seat, for now. They’re important topics but they are issues that have been brewing for years and most likely are not going to go away any time soon.

Generally, we run letters on a first come, first serve basis. That’s why you may see a number of letters printed for a particular issue and then and a number of letters written in response.But sometimes I have to bend this rule if one letter has a more critical time element than another.

The good news for letter writers is that eventually I will get their correspondence in, either on an Opinion Page or at least online on The Oakland Press website.
Every letter is important but, because of space limitations, every letter can’t run the day after we receive it.

Please be patient and understanding and if you have some suggestions to improve this system, feel free to comment or contact me.

'Sound off' lets you speak your mind anonymously

2011-02-24T10:22:00.000-08:00

Probably one of the most controversial columns we run in The Oakland Press — now on the Opinion Page — is Sound Off.

The feature, which is published Saturdays and Mondays, allows people to express their opinions without having to sign their names to a letter. In fact, they don’t even have to identify themselves. Participants call in to our Sound Off line (248-745-4646) and need only leave their home town.

The policy is diametrically opposite of what we require from those who wish to have letters to the editor published. These individuals must supply us with their name, specific home town address and their phone numbers. We only run their name and home town but we need the other information for our records. We also call to confirm that an individual did write a specific letter.

Sound off callers, on the other hand, don’t provide us with much information and we don’t check on the call. However, at this point, I must stress that we do edit extensively the calls that come in to Sound Off. We have to because too many are libelous and just plain hateful.

Are we being hypocritical for requiring so much identification for letters and hardly anything for calls? After all, everything is basically an opinion.

Well, let’s look at the balance sheet.

Sound Off provides people who are afraid to identify themselves with a way to express their opinions. However, there’s no guarantee that their phone message will get printed and, as I’ve mentioned, the items left on the recorder are heavily edited for libel and just plain decency.

On the other hand, we do try to publish every letter we receive.

In both cases — Sound Off or letters to the editor — items can express an opinion but must be factually accurate.

Certainly, letters that are signed and get published give their authors more creditability than just an anonymous message. It takes courage to express your opinion and then back it up by signing your name to it.

Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and as part of a newspaper, The Oakland Press Opinion Page tries to serve as a medium for this purpose.

With these two outlets, practically everyone has a chance to express their views.

So is this policy fair? Or should we require Sound Off callers to leave their name and a return phone number?

You tell me.

We can bend but not break our letter policy

2011-02-22T15:23:00.000-08:00

The Oakland Press Opinion Page has received a number of letters in response to Gov. Rick Snyder’s controversial state budget proposal.

While I’d love to run them for you tomorrow or even yesterday, most will have to be run over the next week of so.

However, for letters such as these, that’s not a bad timetable. We do bend our policy a bit, if necessary.

Generally, we run letters to the editor on a first come, first serve basis. Consequently, if we receive a letter from you today, we will be able to publish it in one to two weeks.

But if the topic you’re writing about deals with a very current event or a circumstance that might change soon, then we do try to put a priority your letter.

The governor’s budget will no doubt continue to create much heated debate over the next few weeks. But because he might decide to change portions of it — possibly because of political or public pressure — before a final draft is approved by the legislature, we will try to be as timely as possible with budget-related letters.

Unfortunately, we do get letters that are outdated because circumstances surrounding their topic have changed.

For example, if a person writes in support of a particular piece of legislation and that bill has already been passed into law or was rejected, then his letter is pretty much useless.

Another example is during the election season. As I’ve written, we don’t run election-related letters or guest opinions a week before the actual balloting. So, if we get a letter for or against a ballot issue after deadline, then we just have to dispose of it because it won’t make any sense to run it after the election. By the same token, letters received a day or two ahead of the deadline we will put a special rush on to get them. If people are conscientious enough to meet our deadline, they deserve to have their letter published.

Generally, we’re quite proud of our ability to run almost every letter we receive in a timely fashion.

The first come, first serve policy really works and is the most fair, under normal circumstances.

Health care offers myriad of editorial topics

2011-02-17T13:29:00.000-08:00

As I’ve often said, topics for editorials come in all shapes and sizes — figuratively and literally.

And they can come from all over country.

I continually get letters and comments from not only Oakland County readers but also many former residents who have retired and moved out of state.

For example, one retiree in Arizona wrote of a situation she found herself in that is very scary and unfortunately, probably is a sign of things to come for many of us.
She has been in very good health but finally gave in and decided to see a doctor because her cold seemed to be getting worse than better.
She was shocked to learn that many doctors in Arizona don’t even want to look at you if you have Medicare for health coverage. She also has a Blue Cross supplement but that wasn’t enough for a number of physicians.
The doctors wanted lump sums of $1,500 or more just to see her and then every bill had to be paid upfront.

It’s not a pleasant situation, to say the least, and it probably will get worse.
There are numerous causes but one is the doctor shortage. Physicians are being over burdened with too many patients and the shortage will only worsen as doctors retire.
I’m not alone when I say this.

The reputable Remapping Debate website reports that the U.S. has failed to increase medical school or residency slots significantly in recent years. So — with a still growing and fast-aging patient population and an impending wave of physician retirements — the U.S. is poised to suffer even more serious physician shortages in the next decade, with estimates ranging from 90,000 to 200,000 fewer doctors than will be needed.

Also, for some other interesting facts, as of September 2009, at least 80 million Americans lived in areas with a shortage of medical practitioners in at least one field, according the Health Resources and Services Administration. Many of those areas have a lack of access to primary care doctors, dentists, or mental health professionals. In 2006, 30 percent of U.S. counties lacked a single surgeon, according to the American College of Surgeons. Shortages have also been reported in several other health fields in recent years, including pediatrics, radiology, and endocrinology.

Additionally, a 2009 survey by the health care consulting firm Merritt Hawkins showed that — even in more than a dozen cities with high physician-to-population ratios — physician appointment wait times had risen considerably, and across a number of specialties, since 2005.

Yes, the topics are many and the debate is heated. From health care in general to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid in specific, these issues are now brewing and will undoubtedly keep bubbling over in intense debate for years to come.
We’ll write about some issues involving these topics but the list will just grow as will the problems associated with them.

We editorialize about topics when we believe we can make a relatively logical argument for or against an issue. Yes, many people will contest this statement and say we write too many illogical pieces.

But the point is that the issues are many while the space is limited. The editorials are basically opinions and the topics we write about are judgment calls. We can’t please everyone and many people often disagree with our stand on an issue, but hey, as I’ve said before and will undoubtedly remind you in the future, that’s why it’s called the Opinion Page.

Readers passionate about Mallard Fillmore

2011-02-10T14:05:00.000-08:00

There many things that appear in a daily newspaper that logically can stir the emotions of readers.

A heart-warming feature story can bring tears to your eyes while a straight news piece on a local government planning to raise your taxes can move you to anger, among other sentiments — some too strong to repeat here.

But rarely does a cartoon create such strong emotions and literally divide a readership. However, Mallard Fillmore seems to be one feature of The Oakland Press that evokes diametrically opposite feelings. You either love the cartoon or you hate it.

Admittedly there are some readers who don’t quite get so upset with each cartoon that gets published but even those people will still form an opinion, pro or con.

For those of you not familiar with Mallard, the feature is a political cartoon that supports Republican and generally conservative issues. It takes some often strong shots at Democrats and liberals.

Consequently, I think you see how the two sides might face off.

I don’t think there are very many Democrats who enjoy the cartoon, although some may be less affected by it than others. But most Democrats that we hear from are adamantly incensed by the cartoon and wish we would drop it. Some even threaten to cancel their subscriptions if we don’t.

On the other hand, as you might expect, we have many Republican readers who just love the cartoon and tell us it’s one of the first things they read in the newspaper. Some also threaten to cancel their subscriptions but that’s if we drop the comic. There are even a few who say the only reason they take The Oakland Press is because of the cartoon. We’d like to think we offer these readers other features that they might enjoy but the bottom line is we’re glad they’re taking the paper.

Politics has always been a divisive issue and it seems today Americans are even further apart than they were a mere 10 or 20 years ago.

So a political cartoon stirring such debate is understandable.

At this point, we are going to continue to publish the cartoon, so we hope our Democratic readers will either ignore the feature or accept it as just being part of the Comic Section.

Whether you like it or hate it, most people would have to admit it's hard to stay impartial when reading it.

It never hurts to double check

2011-02-03T12:05:00.000-08:00

For those of you who haven’t discovered this, e-mail is wonderful but it’s not perfect.

If someone types one wrong character of your e-mail address, the message won’t get to you.

It’s that simple.

Also, that’s why using some old fashion methods with all this hi tech stuff is not only prudent but wise.

The old saying “never assume” is quite popular among journalists but it really applies to all people and in all circumstances.

In reference to e-mail, never assume that if your e-mail doesn’t come back to you that it reached its intended destination. There is a chance it may just be lost in cyberspace.

That is what apparently happens quite often to e-mail that gets sent to me. I can’t count the number of times someone wondered why I didn’t respond to their e-mail because from their end, “it went through.” Well, you can’t assume.

They should have done a number of things to ensure that I got the message or the letter to the editor or the notice of a meeting date.

The first thing is utilize a very old-fashioned apparatus called a telephone. No, not necessarily the versions that you carry around in your pocket and can text on, access the Internet, take photos and otherwise consume all of your time.

Those could be used but so could that simple little desk model with the funny thing called a receiver and a key pad that actually allows you to touch one number at a time.

Whether you use this old desk model or your new cell phone, call to confirm that an e-mail was received. It only takes a minute and it can eliminate or avoid some very embarrassing situations — like the e-mail that didn’t get to me and I was expecting a time sensitive guest opinion. I finally called the individual to ask where the guest opinion was and the person was shocked to learn I hadn’t already received it. “But it didn’t come back to me,” the person almost indignantly screamed.

When I asked her to double check my e-mail address, it turns out the person forgot the period in: allan.adler@oakpress.com.One wrong character can ruin your whole e-mail experience.

Internet mail is probably 99.9 percent reliable but it’s 100 percent guaranteed that if you have the wrong e-mail address, it won’t reach the intended party.

The moral of this story is don’t be afraid to call me if you send a letter or guest opinion by e-mail. It never hurts to double check to make sure I got it. I promise to always answer my phone if I’m at my desk or return your phone call if I’m not.

Oakland Press staffers have sacrificed

2011-01-27T12:18:00.000-08:00

Recently, I received two anonymous comments on my blog concerning the not-so-popular, to say the least, half-page wrap around advertisements and dividing the A-section into mini-sections.

One comment was particularly critical and so I am responding in this blog.

The comment read: “Count me amongst those who detest that half page wrap around, and everybody I know that reads the Oakland Press hates it as well. You're supposed to be putting out a product that's pleasing to the readers, remember? If it's a matter of revenue, perhaps the staff at the Oakland Press should make concessions and tighten their belts to make ends meet, like they advise everybody else to do. Funny how you never run an editorial about that.”

First, let’s talk about the multiple A-section sections and the wrap around ad. As you might expect, they are related to revenue. The capacity of our press requires the smaller sections to accommodate advertisers who wish to run color ads. It gets a bit technical as to why but that is the basic reason. The advertisements, in whatever form they may take, supply badly needed revenue. So please, bear with us.

Also, The Oakland Press editorial staff has been cut by 50 to 55 percent over the past few years, from a high of about 105 full-time staffers to roughly 45 full time and five part-time workers now in all areas of the Editorial Department — news, photo and copy desk. The figure includes editors.

Obviously, because of the reductions, all staffers, including editors, are doing multiple tasks. Reporters are not only writing stories but editing the stories of other staffers. They also are taking videos of news sources. Often videos, which go online, also yield a still photo to run with the story. Likewise, editors not only read the copy of other staffers but also write from time to time. And we have reporters and editors also doubling on electronically laying out pages.

As far as salary, all Oakland Press staffers have been on a wage freeze for the past three years. In addition, our health care premiums, co-pays and deductibles continue to rise.

We feel we are doing our part to help the company survive the recession. And we are also feeling the bite of the poor economy. So, when we write about sacrifices, we may not have suffered as much as some people who have lost their jobs but we are feeling the pressure and can sympathize.

We have to be selective in what we write about

2011-01-19T08:19:00.000-08:00

There’s an old “inside” joke among those in the newspaper business that states “Isn’t it funny how there’s just enough stories to fit into the newspaper every day?”

Obviously, that’s not quite the case. Between reporter generated stories and those available from the wire services, filling the news hole every day is not a problem. But newspapers follow a process that tries to pick the best stories for its readers. Those stories may not necessarily be prize winning articles but, in the judgment of the newspaper, they are the ones that its readers will be most interested in or the ones that most affect its readers.

Generally, that’s case with selecting topics for an editorial. We have a million different subjects we could discuss but we want to write about what seems most interesting or important to our readers.

Usually, that means taking at look at what’s happening locally, in our readership area. These include school bond and community election issues as well as topics that are creating controversy in one of our communities, such as consolidating police departments or sharing city services. Ideally, the topic may be specific to one community but of interest to all our readers, possibly because the issue being debated may also pop up in another municipality.

Of course, sometimes we’ll do an editorial on legislation pending in Lansing or a controversial battle under way in Washington. Usually the topic, although state or national, will definitely have an affect on our readers.

For example, in Lansing we’ve editorialize on proposed new taxes, the deficit budget, road funding, etc. The list is quite extensive.

In Washington we’ll take a look at legislation or action there that also will affect us locally, such as a new tax or the nation’s financial problems.

Sometimes, we don’t take sides on a issue but rather try to make point.

For example, we have never come out in complete support for Obamacare. We’ve said it is a convoluted, voluminous and costly law that definitely needs changing. But there are some good things in it, as we’ve also mentioned. The main point is we need health care reform and hopefully Obamacare will be at least a start. We often discuss family values and frequently do information editorials, such as those that we run during the holidays.

Sometimes we’ll even do an editorial praising some action or group. Generally, we try to make our Saturday editorials more upbeat and positive.

So, there is a definite process that the Editorial Board goes through in selecting topics for our daily editorials and then deciding what stance we want to take on an issue or what point we’re trying to make.

Our goal is to not necessarily get readers to agree with us but to get them to think. After all, as I’ve said countless times, there’s a reason editorials are run on the Opinion Page — it’s because they are opinions, factually accurate but still opinions.

Some types of letters we'd rather not get

2011-01-13T11:26:00.000-08:00

We love getting letters to the editor — for obvious reasons because that’s our goal. The Opinion Page is based on being a forum for readers to express their views.
As expected, one person’s opinion often leads to a response from several people, often expressing the opposite view.

That’s OK. That’s why we established the page.

But there is one type of letter that we’re not real happy to receive — again for obvious reasons. That’s a letter from an irate reader who disagreed with an editorial or opinion and rather than express his own view, he states he is canceling the paper.
We can’t argue with how the individual feels but it is apparent that his actions are short sighted and he is close-minded. The Opinion Page was established as just that, a page for readers to express their views. Certainly not everyone agrees on a certain topic or issue and so dissension is a given.

Probably the most frustrating aspect is dealing with people who can’t stand to have their opinions challenged. Maybe it’s a sign of the times or maybe it’s always been that way, But since I’ve been Editorial Page Editor, such letters have been continuous but fortunately not in heavy volume. Every once and a while I get such a letter.
If, after explaining the purpose of the page and why there are letters he may not agree with, the individual insists on still canceling the paper, there’s not much I can do. However, I believe most people like the debate and the pro and con discussions that the Opinion Page helps foster.

Sometimes, again not very often thank God, I get a letter from a reader who threatens to cancel his subscription for a reason that has nothing to do with the Opinion Page. In fact, it has nothing to do with the Editorial Department.

Recently, one such reader expressed extreme aggravation over the half page ad that frequently covers the left side of the front page. There’s also a full back page ad. He said the ad was irritating and made it difficult to read the section. His solution was to just throw the page and a half advertisement away. Because of his dislike for the advertisement, he wanted to cancel his subscription. He wasn’t the first express disfavor over such advertisements. However, when I explained to him that the ad, as inconvenient as it might be, was providing badly needed revenue to the newspaper, he seemed to mellow a bit. Most people usually understand and their anger wanes. Occasionally, they still cancel the paper but fortunately most people are reasonable and can accept a reasonable answer to their concerns.

There are reasons for the policies that we follow on the Opinion Page and I’ll be happy to explain them to anyone who has a question or comment. I can’t guarantee all readers will accept the explanation but I’ll be glad to listen to their concerns. E-mail me at allan.adler@oakpress.com, call me at (248) 745-4626 or just comment below.

Last minute changes require teamwork

2011-01-11T08:13:00.000-08:00

I’ve frequently talked about deadlines and how we usually have to put the Opinion Page out several days in advance of its publication and distribution in the newspaper.
Generally, I work a couple days ahead of time.

For example, on Mondays I’m finishing Wednesday editorials and on Tuesdays I’m working on Thursday editorials.

For Mondays, I must get that Opinion Page out by the previous Thursday to allow the copy desk time to proof it and process it.

However, the early deadlines don’t mean we always run editorials that are several days old. We can’t change everything on a page that’s been prepared but sometimes we can substitute editorials, as we did this past weekend with the tragic shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who was among 18 people shot.

Our hearts go out to the families of those killed and we do pray for the recovery of the representative.

The heinous crimes screamed for an editorial and one that would run ASAP.
The story broke on Saturday and Executive Editor Glenn Gilbert and I discussed what we might say. We waited until Sunday to get more details on the continually evolving story but we had to get something together by 4 p.m. to make the Monday newspaper. Obviously, we did.

I wrote an draft Saturday night and polished it up on Sunday morning. I e-mailed Glenn a copy and we reviewed it over the telephone. Then, we forwarded an edited version to the copy desk, which did their magic and made the change.

The editorial that was scheduled to run Monday will run Thursday, barring something else breaking!

It always takes some fancy footwork but it’s part of the job. To have changed the entire page would have literally brought our copy desk to its knees. It’s just not possible.

But with special efforts and a lot of extra work, we can make substitutions for stories that demand an immediate or as soon as possible editorial.

Sometimes, we just want to make a point

2011-01-06T09:58:00.000-08:00

Editorials don’t always have to take a pro or con stance on an issue. Occasionally, they can be informative or just make a point.

For example, let’s take the City of Troy’s distracted ordinance. Officials announced this week that police would start to ticket drivers who violated the regulation.
The ordinance goes beyond the state law that forbids texting while driving and includes talking on hand-held cell phones and any other activity that would cause a driver to be distracted.

Troy police started officially enforcing the city’s distracted driving ordinance Jan. 1, but it’s been on the books since last July. Since then, they haven’t been issuing tickets but spent the remainder of 2010 posting signs at the city limits and educating drivers about the ordinance.

Although we favored the regulation, acknowledging its value in improving driving safety, the point of an editorial that ran last last year was to praise the city and police department for its efforts in informing the public about the ordinance rather than just issuing tickets.

Like most municipalities, Troy is struggling to balance its budget and the $200 fine for using a cell phone while driving could have brought in some badly needed revenue during the latter half of 2010.

But city officials wanted to be fair to its residents and those in the metro area, so police made 400 stops to warn people that a second offense would result in a fine. And the signs the city has posted at its municipal limits warn people who are just driving through town from out of state to put down their cell phones.

So, for variety among other reasons, The Oakland Press editorials will not always support or oppose a position or issue. Sometimes we want to give out well-earned praise and even just take a neutral stance and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

It's the office, not the office holder

2011-01-04T09:22:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it seems people don’t want to acknowledge the obvious.

I got a call from a reader who was upset because we have run a number of pictures and/or stories about Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township.

She said The Oakland Press favors Peters and is constantly trying to get him publicity. Unfortunately, she also said she didn’t like the representative and the publicity he received from us so she was canceling her paper.

The call was left on my voice mail and she did not leave a name or phone number — she obviously didn’t want to discuss the issue.

I would have told her that it is her option to cancel her subscription but that she was not correct in saying we are constantly trying to make Peters look good.
Yes, we endorsed him in last November’s election but it is not our goal to make he gets positive press.

However, it is The Oakland Press’ responsibility to report news events, some more significant than others.

Some people seem to forget that after the election, Peters represents all of his district’s residents, not just the Democrats, although I realize many Republicans would like to disown him.

However, the bottom line is that Peters is the 9th district’s representative in Congress and as such, what he does can be news. We don’t publish everything that his public relations staff sends us but sometimes there are items that warrant placement somewhere in the newspaper. For example, when he gives out an award or passes on a federal grant to a local group or business. It’s news. It’s not necessarily worthy of the front page but it warrants some mention somewhere — and that occasionally means running his picture, too.

What needs to be stressed is that we are not running any news items for Peters that we haven’t run for past congressmen, whether Democrats or Republicans.

We are merely covering the office — not necessarily the individual.

Some topics warrant repeat editorials

2010-12-30T07:30:00.000-08:00

You probably have noticed that from time to time, The Oakland Press has done editorials on topics that were previously written about.

But we’re not trying to be redundant or just fill space on a day when we could not think of a subject to discuss. Some topics are just fair game for repeat editorials — and for good reasons.

One reason is that the subject matter warranted an updated editorial. We had written about it before but there was new information. Sometimes the new data changed the editorial stance but usually it just enhances a position taken.

For example, we’ve editorialized numerous times on medical marijuana, including once this week. It’s not that we want to belabor the issue but new developments dictated an updated editorial. When it was first put on the ballot, we editorialized against its passage. But voters still approved it. However, when it was instituted, it became ironically clear that it the law governing medical marijuana use was convoluted and confusing. Thus, another editorial urging law makers to clarify the law was in order.
Along these same lines, during the past year many local communities placed moratoriums on the distribution of medical marijuana until they could figure out what their best course of action would be. So, an editorial, in this case, supporting the communities was in order.

Sometimes, an editorial is dictated by the calendar. As you probably noticed, every year we write Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s day editorials.

That’s because the message expressed last year warrants repeating to remind readers.
For example, the New Year’s Eve editorial cautioned readers about drinking and driving. We reminded them that there would be extra police patrols on the roads to catch those driving drunk.

Consequently, there are legitimate reasons to write about a topic again, although we don’t want to just repeat an editorial word for word. We would update information and discuss new developments. For example, we often use statistics in discussing drunk driving accidents and deaths. Unfortunately, there are new figures every year to use in an editorial.
Sometimes, writing a new editorial about a previous topic or issue just makes sense.

It's a slow news week

2010-12-29T08:50:00.000-08:00

The year is quickly ending and we’ve reached an interesting time period for The Oakland Press.

There’s not much happening this week that is planned from a straight news standpoint. Municipalities and school boards are not conducting meetings. They probably canceled any scheduled ones. For example, if they normally meet during the Fourth week of the month, odds are that session has been canceled.

So, the news that you’re getting now are feature stories or hard news events that are happening at the moment. For example, the storm in New England, obviously, is generating lots of air time and ink.

Locally, we seen some crime news and unfortunately, a few fires that taint the holidays.

From an editorial standpoint, there’s not a lot of ideas being generated this time of the year. But we do come up with a few, depending upon current events. We ran in today’s paper an editorial on the East Coast snowstorm. It was, basically, that this could happen here, but for the grace of God, so learn from the experience of our fellow Americans suffering through the blizzards and their aftermath. The most obvious lesson is to respect Mother Nature, she can certainly be humbling.

On Friday I’ll discuss why some topics are fair game for repeat editorials, although they probably won’t be repeated word for word. I’ll explain Friday.

Your memories of Christmas are unique

2010-12-23T11:47:00.000-08:00

There is a magic about Christmas — and it’s different for every person.

Growing up in the small community of Bad Axe, the county seat of Huron County, which is located at the tip of the Thumb of Michigan, I remember Christmas Eves and Christmas Days that were so tranquil, you felt you were in a picturesque Currier and Ives scene.

Although there were some holidays that didn’t have snow, Bad Axe is part of snow belt and it was usually a pretty sure bet you’d see that white stuff on the ground by Dec. 24.

Oh sure, during the day Dec. 24 the streets of the several blocks of the downtown were filled with cars and the sidewalks lined with shoppers getting ready for the holiday.

But by 9 p.m., maybe 10 p.m., the downtown streets were pretty vacant — residents were at home or maybe in church. And by midnight, when all or most of the people not at mass were snuggled into their beds, if you took a walk downtown (and it was very safe to do so in Bad Axe) you saw a sky that seemed clearer, snow that was cleaner and holidays lights were brighter then they are today. Were they more vivid? Maybe not, but one’s mind has a way of sharpening the scenes, even if the memory is dulled.

Of course, I’m going back 30-some years and maybe Christmas Eve in Bad Axe today wouldn’t exude the same feelings for me. Maybe they never did for anyone else. But that’s OK. These are my memories and I wanted to share them. What are your memories of Christmas? The good ones. The memories that bring a smile to your face and warmth to your soul.

Every year The Oakland Press writes a Christmas Eve editorial and a Christmas Day editorial. Of course, one of the main purposes is to highlight, as they say “the reason for the season.”

For Christians, it’s the celebration of the birthday of Jesus Christ. Yet, amid this one, simple reason, individual Christians have their own memories and celebrations of the holiday.

And for non-Christians who live in the United States, they too have had enough encounters with the holiday to have created their own memories, some admittedly, not necessarily positive.

But the ultimate point of any Christmas editorial, in any given year, is that the holiday may be Christian but its message is universal.

Peace on earth. Goodwill toward men. How can any sane, logical and reasonable person argue with those simple yet powerful goals?

Growing up Jewish in a small community that is 99.9 percent Christian is not necessarily difficult if the small town is in the United States, where most rural Americans value freedom of religion and respect individuals who possess moral values, a strong work ethic and integrity. Those values are espoused by Christianity but not confined to it. They are values that most religions today, ideally, would want to see in their followers.

So, enjoying Christmas in a small town — or in an urban center — is easy because there are no religious boundaries to the values Christ taught.

Every individual has his or her own recollection of Christmas. I just hope people dwell on the positive memories and not the negative ones.

Editorial ideas take some time and thought

2010-12-16T13:58:00.000-08:00

There is a thought process to selecting topics for editorials. We don’t just sit around and say "let’s do an editorial on (you fill in the blank)."

No, we actually analyze what’s going on in the news and try to decide if a issue or topic warrants an editorial.

It’s similar to selecting stories for the news sections of the paper.
One of the first criteria is to keep the editorial local. We want to write about something that is happening in Oakland County or that might affect local residents. So, we could take a stand on a local millage issue or give some insight on a brewing controversy. The topic could concern the budget, a public safety regulation or, most often, it’s a political debate among two local leaders whose philosophies of governing differ.

Sometimes we’ll talk about a state and national issue but of course, it would be one that affects Oakland County residents — such as President Obama’s health care bill, continuation of the Bush tax cuts or state legislation dealing with roads. The topics can be numerous.

After establishing the local angle, we have to decide if there’s something we can say about it that would enlighten the public or prompt further discussion. For example, every community and school district has councils and boards that pass yearly budgets. Editorializing about each budget would be boring and frankly, impossible.

However, if that budget is passed with some dissension or disagreement over what should be included in it, then an editorial might be in order. Obviously, each incident would have to be reviewed for its potential significance and effect on the citizens and if an editorial would help, hurt or do nothing.

Many times it’s a judgment call as to what to write about.

Editorials can be informative, stir debate or just give some praise. One important fact about The Oakland Press editorials, they don’t always have to be negative or critical. Upbeat editorials provide a refreshing change from the gloom and doom of our economy and The Oakland Press has been running more and more of them.

Take a look at the newspaper and if you have any suggestions for editorials, let me know — either through this blog or by e-mailing me at allan.adler@oakpress.com.

Thank God for Plan B

2010-12-14T11:05:00.000-08:00

As in most things, sometimes you’re successful and sometimes you run into road blocks that force you to go to Plan B.

Last week I talked about setting up a town hall meeting to discuss a local issue that has been in the news.

I’m currently trying to set up a town hall meeting or forum in Troy to discuss the controversial library issue. Voters turned down four millage proposal in November and so now the library is scheduled to close April 30.

In some respects, the issue may seem over but there’s a pending new citizen-initiated petition to force the city to keep its doors open reportedly in the works. Also, groups who supported the library proposals and who want to see the city keep open such a facility could always start drives for new election or elections.

Originally, I had hoped everything would came together and we’d have the forum this week — Dec. 14.

Obviously, it didn’t happen. The holidays, some personal schedule conflicts and just reluctance in participating by some people have forced us to reschedule for Jan. 13.

However, nothing is set in stone. Contact needs to be made with a number of individuals and plans finalized. Details include figuring out how to attract an audience and what is the fairest way to allow people to sit in if the number of people who want to attend is more than the studio capacity.

If all things come together, the topic will be discussed live in an informative session in the CMNtv studios in Troy. The program will be live-streamed to The Oakland Press website and also rebroadcast on cable TV.

On the other hand, if things again fall through, there’s always Plan C. Obviously, we don’t want to delay this too long because interest from all participants will eventually wane and the project halted.

However, we won’t give up. At least not yet. We’ll go through a couple more “plans” if we have too. Of course, we’d prefer not to have to go through the whole alphabet!

Town hall meetings take planning and legwork

2010-12-07T09:15:00.000-08:00

Trying to set up a town hall meeting that focuses on a local issue can be a daunting experience.

You can’t just pick a date and expect people to show up. There’s considering planning and legwork involved.

For example, I’m currently trying to set up a town hall meeting or forum in Troy to discuss the controversial library issue. Voters turned down four millage proposal in November concerning the library and so now the facility is scheduled to close April 30.

In some respects, the issue may seem over but there’s a pending new citizen-initiated petition to force the city to keep its doors open reportedly in the works. Also, groups who supported the library proposals and who want to see the city keep open such a facility could always start drives for new election or elections.

Libraries are a critical part of a community and so it would seem likely the issue isn’t going to die.

A possible date for the forum has been set for next Tuesday, Dec. 14 but I’m currently trying to line up participates to discuss the topic. It would have a question and answer type format that would include discussion of the current petition drive, what the Friends of the Library or other groups would like to see happen or are trying to make happen.

Consequently, the whole effort involves scheduling and rechecks, contacting and recontacting potential participants and then figuring out exactly what format will be used and how to find an audience of about 30 people that isn’t one sided.
As in any good journalism effort, the newspaper wants to stay impartial and involve all sides of the issue.

Because of the effort involved, there’s a chance the forum may have to be postponed if not enough participants can be lined up.

The town hall forum is a great idea but, as with all great ideas, it takes planning, legwork and considerable effort to make them a reality. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t. I’ll keep you informed on the progress of this project.

"Fair" is often in the eye of the beholder

2010-12-02T10:00:00.000-08:00

Beauty is often said to be “in the eye of the beholder.” Generally, this means that what I find attractive or beautiful someone else might not. It’s just matter of opinion.

The same could be said for fairness on the Opinion Page. A policy that The Oakland Press believes to be fair to all readers may not seem so to some individuals.

We publish letters on a first come, first basis — isn’t that fair? However, sometimes that yields an imbalance on the Opinion Page. We may get numerous letters in favor of a particular issue and none against it, at least until those who are in the opposition see the initial letters and respond accordingly. So, one day you may seen three or four letters in support of a particular cause or action and several days later you may see letters opposing it. Because of the backlog of letters and deadline restrictions, it’s almost impossible to run a response to a letter the next day, even if we got the response on the same day the original letter ran.

Sometimes we have to bend our rules. For example, it’s difficult for a letter to be exactly 250 words. Often they are less but many times they run over and register at 275 or even 300 words. We try to be flexible, that’s why we say “about” 250 words.
Also, if there’s a time element to a letter, we may have to put a priority on it. For example, if someone is writing urging City Council to pass a certain ordinance and the council is expected to meet on Friday, we’ll try to get the letter in before or on that day if we get the correspondence earlier in the week.

At times, too, we have to put a priority on responses. While it will take at least a few days for a letter to be processed and published, if it is in response or reaction to certain controversial statements made in a published letter, then we do try to run the response as soon as possible. It only seems fair.

As you can see, when it comes to the Opinion Page, it takes a lot of effort to be “fair” and usually it requires some help and considerable patients from our readers.
The page has several purposes, from being a forum for readers to express their views to making people think as well as stirring debate.
So, write us, either expressing your views on a new topic or responding to an opinion expressed in a previously published letter.

We can’t guarantee when it will run but we promise to eventually publish it, provided it meets the policy requirements, basically that it is not libelous or vulgar and is about 250 words.

Under the circumstances, this is about as “fair” as we can be.

Let's celebrate religious freedom

2010-12-01T06:56:00.000-08:00

Today’s editorial was about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.

It’s a wonderfully colorful and festive event that celebrates religious freedom. The original holiday was observed in honor of a military victory by ancient Jews over the Syrians, who wanted to force the Jews to worship their idols.

The Jews fought and won the right to worship as they please.

But why is it worth an editorial? For several reasons.

First, there is a significant Jewish population in The Oakland Press coverage area that appreciates the positive attention the editorial brings.

The second reason is for educational purposes — it lets non-Jews learn about the holiday. The more information is spread and learned, the greater the understanding of a religion, in this case Judaism.

Another reason for the editorial is that the holiday has a universal message — one quite similar to Christianity and other religions of the world. Hanukkah celebrates religious freedom and advocates that for all people of all faiths in all nations. Unfortunately, such universal freedom does not exist yet in this world and is probably centuries away.

But the wish is still there. And people of goodwill from all religions need to realize that their goals and desires are not that different from those of other cultures in the United States and throughout the world.

So, if you want to help celebrate Hanukkah, it’s easy. Just wish your Jewish friends or neighbors a “Happy Hanukkah.”

Good sources needed, even for editorials

2010-11-24T10:24:00.000-08:00

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.

Striving to unite, not divide

2010-11-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

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.

Reader offers excellent insight

2010-11-17T12:38:00.000-08:00

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.

How impartial should newspapers get?

2010-11-10T07:10:00.000-08:00

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.

It's nice when people understand

2010-11-04T07:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Some letters writers just don't understand

2010-10-28T11:40:00.000-07:00

Most of the people who write letters to The Oakland Press are reasonable, courteous and understanding.

They’ve got strong opinions and don’t mind expressing them but they do so in an open-minded way that I believe is the essence of our Democracy. They understand the Opinion Page policies and why they are formulated to be “fair” to all.

Some of these great readers and letter writers I’ll talk about in a future blog.
Today, I just want to comment briefly on some of those people who, frankly, leave me scratching my head and wondering “why?”

They are the ones who write a letter to the editor but don’t seem to understand the term “fairness” and are upset because we don’t have space and had to hold their letter or we ran it but had to trim the correspondence. They are also upset if they read a guest opinion, letter or editorial that they don’t agree with.

One irate reader recently said he was canceling his subscription because we endorsed a candidate he disliked. The fact we endorsed several candidates who he probably would vote for didn’t matter. We gave an endorsement to a candidate he doesn’t like, so, he was canceling his subscription.

Obviously, I can’t argue with how the gentleman feels or stop him from canceling the paper but I don’t have to admire or respect him — and I don’t.

He claims to support the U.S. Constitution and be in favor of Free Speech. To me, that means allowing everyone to express their opinions and respecting their views, even if you don’t agree with them.

However, this particularly gentlemen seems to be saying he supports the Constitution and Free Speech as long as he agrees with what you’re saying.

Fortunately, these types of individuals are in the minority, based on my experience with them.

I respect their right to their opinions but I believe they are closed-minded hypocrites.

For God's sake, it's only an opinion

2010-10-21T07:53:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press endorsements are done for the Nov. 2 election.

As I’ve mentioned in past blogs, we couldn’t endorse in every race but we did pick in the most high profile races, which included Congressional races, the battles for governor, secretary of state and attorney general, and the Oakland County Board of Commissioners.

Of course, even though we’ve endorsed in fewer political campaigns, we still managed to aggravate, upset and in some cases, anger some readers. That is never our intention but it seems to go with the territory.

Jokingly, we say that we manage to infuriate at least half the candidates in the races that we made an endorsement.

Seriously, why do we make endorsements? It certainly would be a lot easier on the staff if we didn’t. The Circulation Department would probably appreciate it since we do sometimes lose subscriber who don’t like who we pick.

But the answer is pretty basic — it’s expected of a local newspaper. It’s one of the tenants of a good newspaper dating back at least a couple hundred years. Sure, it’s a tradition that we could stop and it certainly is one that we’ve had to alter because of the economy and changes in the newspaper market. But despite all of the modern-day concepts and technology, people who read a newspaper expect the endorsements. Some people even appreciate them, saying that in certain races they were given insight that they previously didn’t have. They may not agree with who we endorse but at least they see a different perspective on the candidates or the issues.

There are some who say our endorsements actually help them make a decision, which is refreshing considering the criticism we always receive.

We really don’t mind the scoldings but when the comments turn vitriolic, it is disappointing and upsetting.

It’s times like those when I try to remind the infuriated reader that the endorsement is an opinion — one they don’t have to agree with. And that’s why the endorsements are on the Opinion Page.

Callers are important

2010-10-14T12:57:00.000-07:00

As I indicated Wednesday, taking phones from readers is part of my job and it is a very important part.

Readers need to know that there are real, live people behind the publications, stories and opinions in The Oakland Press.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to sit and chat for hours but I do make it a point to talk to people and return their phone calls. People know that their readership and opinions are valued. And as we’ve stressed, you don’t have to agree with The Oakland Press editorial or other letter writers, that’s why the page is called the Opinion Page.

There are two individuals who stay in touch frequently, usually through the telephone and they are great examples of the types of people who we are trying to serve.
I won’t mention their names because I don’t want to embarrass them but they may figure out who I’m talking about.

One is a retired GM employee and the other a retired teacher. They may be similar in other ways but their political views are pretty much opposite. The former GM worker is a conservative while the teacher could be considered a liberal, although I’m using these terms loosely.

There are times when the individuals agree with an editorial and other times when they don’t. It’s OK, either way. They call to tell me how they feel and they concede that it’s just an opinion and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

What these two individuals are is very open-minded and reasonable. They may be passionate about their views but they understand that not everyone will agree with them.

To me, they realize the true essence of freedom of speech and tolerance.
There are some individuals, fortunately not many, who seem to think that they’re the epitome of patriotism but if you don’t agree with their views, then you’re wrong and should shut up. That is not my interpretation of free speech.

To give you an example of the latter, there’s an individual who uses the pseudonym “John Galt." This is a fictional character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957). Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel's often repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer.
I will admit that initially I thought this individual was a real reader but in checking the address I was given, there is no such person.

Obviously, the person who is behind the e-mails sent in the name of John Galt is a coward who is afraid to stand up for what he believes. Otherwise, he’d give his real name.

I won’t spend a lot more time on this person but he or she is an example of the varying types of calls I receive.

Most callers are like our GM and teacher retirees. They have strong opinions, don’t mind stating them and are not afraid to stand behind their views by giving their names. Also, they realize that in America, it’s OK to disagree.

Identifying yourself gives you creditability

2010-10-12T17:01:00.000-07:00

Taking phone calls from readers is an everyday occurrence. Usually the caller wants information on how to get a letter or guest opinion in the newspaper. I tell him or her that letters must be no more than 250 words, unless it’s election season, in which case endorsement letters are restricted to 150 words. Guest opinions can be up to 600 words but the author must have some expertise on the subject he is writing about. Otherwise, everyone would want to do a guest opinion and there’s not enough space to allow that.

Then there are phone calls, at least a couple every day, from irate readers. They’re upset at an editorial, at someone else’s letter or often they just want vent about the world situation.

Sometimes I even get phone calls that compliment me or The Oakland Press. They like the editorial or the fact most of the letters supported their particular position.
I don’t mind taking the phone calls and I pride myself on returning all of my missed calls as quickly as possible. They are readers and so any chance I can get to explain why we do something, the better it is for myself and for the newspaper. Most people usually accept my explanations and are genuinely grateful for the insight.

But amid the diplomacy and my cordial demeanor, I do have one fairly strict rule — I want to know who I’m talking to so I insist that they them give me their names. I have a simple slogan that goes with this rule — “If you can’t give me your name, I won’t give you my time.”

Time is precious and there aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything done that you’d like to — and often there aren’t enough hours in the day to do everything you need to do.

So I want to know who I’m talking to — they know who I am. My theory, right or wrong, is that if they are afraid to stand behind what they are saying to me by not giving me their names, then they lose most, if not all creditability with me.
Usually those that don’t give me their names are calling to complain. As I’ve said, I have broad shoulders and I can take the criticism, but not from people who are too afraid to give me their names. If they can’t trust me, I don’t have time for them.
It may sound to be a bit harsh but it works for me and when you think about, it’s not really that unreasonable a rule.

When you give me your opinion, then give me your name to show you stand behind what you are saying.

In my opinion, it was a tie

2010-10-07T13:57:00.000-07:00

In every contest, people like to have a winner. Even though individuals may not admit it, they probably agree, at least tacitly, with legendary Green Bay Packers Coach Vince Lombardi, who said a tie is like kissing your sister.

Of course, the implication, for those who may not understand, is that no matter how much you love your sibling, kissing is not the same (at least it shouldn’t be) when it’s between family members as opposed to a significant other or spouse.

That said, we’re going to disappoint — or maybe anger — a lot of people when we say the debate between 9th District Congressional Candidates Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, and Rocky Raczkowski, R-Farmington, was a tie.

Excuse me while I duck. I know that there are supporters for each candidate who will swear, among other things, that their particular man won. And so they should feel that way — they’re supporters of the candidate.But if you take a more independent, middle of the road look at the debate, you’d have to conclude it was a tie.

Neither candidate was able to out wit, out talk or out last the other. They both were logical, fluent and confident during the discussions.

In most cases, as we pointed out in an editorial, they didn’t differ much, if at all.
For example, both favored the tax abatements and efforts to keep the GM Orion Plant open. Peters said the tax breaks were essential while Raczkowski said “we shouldn’t be begging our employers to come here.”

On health care, both said there were some good aspects to the lengthy new law. Peters defended it saying a critical component of health care is that it’s affordable and that insurance exchanges in 2014 will make it so. Raczkowski said the current bill was giving citizens higher taxes. However, he supported provisions that allow individuals to stay on their parents’ policies till they’re 26, and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children due to pre-existing conditions.

In reference to foreign policy, both agreed that strong efforts need to be made and steps taken to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.
There was no impartial judge or referee scoring points during the debate, so calling it a draw will remain merely an opinion, just as the views of Peters and Raczkowski supporters, who believe their candidate won.

But the biggest victory for one of the candidates, as we all know, will come in November at the ballot box.

Planning for a debate

2010-09-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

This week’s debate between Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, and Rocky Raczkowski, Farmington Hills, the Republican challenger for the 9th Congressional seat, lasted only about an hour but it took literally weeks to set up and organize.

The main purpose of the debate was to give residents of the district, which includes most communities in central and eastern Oakland County, a chance to see the two candidates discuss important issues face to face. Debates have become a staple in politics these days and considering the heated race, a debate was more than appropriate.

Finding a location and setting a date and time for the debate were important but the top priority was how to conduct a “fair” debate. The venue, in this case the Oakland County Board of Commissioners auditorium, took only a phone call or two and finding a mutually convenient date and time was just a matter of both candidates checking their schedules.

But when you talk about being “fair,” there are other considerations that take more discussion, time and effort. For example, the auditorium held about 250 people. About 50 seats were needed for Oakland Press,Community Media Network staffers and miscellaneous guests. CMNtv livestreamed the debate on The Oakland Press website and it was also taped for rebroadcasting on local public television access channel 18.

So, how do we fill the 200 seats? Open the doors at 6 p.m. and just let the general public in? It was one alternative but it wasn’t really favored by either candidate or The Oakland Press. The main problem here was what if one side or the other got their supporters their first and thus filled most of the seats? It just wouldn’t fair.
Another avenue was to give each side 100 seats. However, a third alternative was used and it came from the candidates’ themselves. We asked both sides what they wanted to do and each said give us 50 seats and open the other 100 to the general public.
So, that’s what we tried to do but we still had a major problem — what was the fairest way to fill those 100 seats? The candidates were going to give us a list of 50 names with addresses so we could check them off at the door.

But what about the other 100? Remembering the chaos that developed at town hall meetings over the past two years, we decided just opening the doors to the general public wouldn’t necessarily work. We might end up drawing a large, over-flow crowd of angry people who couldn’t get in.

Some type of reservation system seemed to be called for and we selected online registration. The debate was going to be live on the Internet so filling the seats through an online registration system seemed prudent.

It had some problems but it generally seemed to work. People were told in an online news story that if they wanted a seat in the debate, they had to register online. The first 100 to register were sent confirmation notices by e-mail.
There probably is a better way to do this but we couldn’t figure it out at this time. Our main objective, as I said, was to be “fair” and also to avoid the chaos that we saw so often at town hall meetings.

To this extent, we were successful. Both the Peters and Raczkowski supporters, generally, were well behaved and we were able to keep the focus on the candidates.

Letters vs Guest Opinions

2010-09-23T16:21:00.000-07:00

So you’d like to write a guest opinion instead of a letter to the editor? Well, you’re not alone. You have succumb to the theory that more is better — in this case up to 600 words instead of about 250.

Because of the requests for guest opinions, we’ve had to establish limits on their use simply because we don’t have enough space to run a guest opinion from every who wants to write one.

In fact, often we don’t have enough space for guest opinions that do fit into our loose policy.

Generally, you qualify for a guest opinion if you have some expertise on the topic about which you are writing.
For example, anyone can have an opinion on national health care. So they would qualify for a 250-word letter to the editor.

However, to turn that 250-word letter into a 600-word guest opinion, the writer should be someone in the health care industry or insurance, i.e. someone who, in theory at least, would have some special expertise on the topic.
Another example is the local school budget. Residents of a school district certainly have views about the way their district is financed and spends their tax dollars. So they could write a 250-letter expressing them. However, a superintendent or finance officer of the district might be granted a guest opinion because that individual, presumably, would have more detailed expertise on the topic.
Sometimes the line is not exact and so we usually error on the side of fairness — in other words, we’ll let an individual write a guest opinion, even if they may not be quite the expert they appeared to be.

The problem we’ve faced, as I’ve mentioned, is that when people learn we have the guest opinion option, they immediately want to write a 600-word piece.
Most views on a specific topic can be expressed in 250 words or less. The 600-word opinions allow for more details to be presented but often extra details are not needed and quite frequently, they can make topics redundant.

In reference to letters to the editor that allow a reader to express an opinion, the old axiom “less is more” definitely applies in 99 percent of the cases. A 250-word letter to the editor is much better than trying to express the same views a 600-word guest opinion. The letter will get read more quickly and completely than the guest opinion and the bottom line, it normally gets a writer’s view across more accurately than a guest opinion.

We get lots of letters

2010-09-15T12:35:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press is proud of its policy of trying to run every letter to the editor that it receives, provided the correspondence meets the basic criteria.
This includes a letter being 250 words or less and not written in a libelous or vulgar manner.

Unfortunately, fulfilling that goal becomes difficult, if not impossible at certain times of the year, such as during election time.

When we get more letters than we can possibly publish on the Opinion Page, we do have one outlet — our website. Letters that we just can’t seem to get into the newspaper are uploaded to the website so that our readers’ opinions can be viewed in one fashion, or another. Usually, the website is the only alternative when space gets too tight. We realize most people would prefer to have their letters published but we believe that placing them on the web is a reasonable solution. It certainly is better than not publishing it at all.

Consequently, if you’ve submitted a letter and you don’t see it published in three or four week — hopefully sooner — then we encourage you to call us. We’ll track the letter down to make sure we received it and then can give you a status report on whether it is still pending for publication on the Opinion Page or if it has been placed online.

Many newspaper just pick and choose certain letters for publication and throw away the others they may receive.

The Oakland Press doesn’t do that. We respect our readers’ opinions and we pride ourselves on being a vehicle for them to express their views. Publishing the letters in the order that they are received usually works out. But times, as mentioned, if the volume gets too large, we have to go to plan B, which in this case is the web.

Endorsement process is time consuming

2010-09-09T13:24:00.000-07:00

I’ve commented numerous times that The Oakland Press endorsement process is complicated. So, let’s go into some detail to give you further insight into what’s involved.

One of the first and most difficult actions is deciding in which races the newspaper should endorse a candidate. I won’t dwell on this because I’ve discussed it in the past but as a brief refresher, we try to not only select the most important races — for example, the governor’s race and the campaigns for state office — but also in those races that appear to be particularly close. There’s no guarantee but probably one of the closest races — at least one of the more heated — will be the battle between Rep. Gary Peters and challenger Rocky Raczkowski for the 9th District Congressional seat.

The next step is to schedule a time for the candidates to come in. Usually, we allocate a half hour to each candidate and bring them in separately, so they have the Editorial Board’s full attention. Scheduling is not necessarily difficult but it often is time consuming. You have to call a candidate or his representative. They have to get back to you with a possible time and date and then you have to keep going back and forth until a mutually convenient time is found for both the candidate and Editorial Board members. Setting up one appointment could take any where from five to 10 telephone calls. That may not seem like much but when you multiple that figure by the number of candidates you’re contacting, the total can get quite high.

During the interview, there are always a few basic questions to ask each candidate. Usually they run along the line of “why are you running for office” and “what do you believe are the most critical issues faced by the community?” Often, the answers will lead to other questions and so no two interviews are exactly the same.
After all of the candidate interviews are completed, members of the Editorial Board meet to compare notes. They decide on which candidates to endorse. The decision can be based on any number of criteria but generally the selection is of the person who the board believes would best serve the public. Obviously, we’re not always correct in our selections or the candidate we endorse doesn’t win. Well, that’s the way elections run.

Please remember that not all those endorsed have the unanimous backing of the board. Majority rules here as it does in the general election.
We try publish our endorsements over several weeks and at least two weeks before the election. This gives readers who desire some guidance a chance to look over the endorsements and decide if they agree or disagree.

Some things never change in the endorsement process. They are always time consuming. We don’t always select the person who wins the race and readers may not agree with our pick. But please remember, like many things in journalism, the endorsement process is a judgment call by the Editorial Board.

It will be a busy election season

2010-09-07T13:32:00.000-07:00

Well, it’s started.

We are having more than 200 candidates seeking local, state and national positions come into The Oakland Press over the next few weeks for an interview and to be video taped.

We’ve wasted no time after the long Labor Day holiday weekend, candidates began coming into the office today.

The information obtained will be put online and made available shortly through our website, www.theoaklandpress.com.

Scheduling and interviewing the candidates is a daunting task. Our main reporters will be doing profile videos on 30 to 40 candidates each.

This is something new for The Oakland Press. In the past we’ve always done profiles on the candidates but the video taping is new this year. Also, usually we don’t call in all of the candidates, opting, in many cases, to have the candidates submit written information on a form that we send to them.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that all of the candidates will agree to come into the office but each in the November election races that we’re covering will be offered that opportunity.

From the Opinion Page standpoint, an editorial board member will not be able to sit on all of the taping sessions, although we do plan to be present for some of the major races in our coverage area.

As in past years, we can’t endorse candidates in each race because, to be honest, there are just too many races and candidates. But we will try to do some endorsements, probably published in the latter part of October.

In my next blog, I’ll give you some of the behind the scenes logistics involved in doing endorsements. As readers, you see the final product — an endorsement article on the Opinion Page of The Oakland Press.

But there’s quite a bit of work involved.

When is it right and when is it wrong?

2010-09-02T16:07:00.000-07:00

Wouldn’t it be great if everything was either black and white, right and wrong or good and bad?

It certainly would make life simpler, but maybe not necessarily easier or more fun.

In reality, few things are either black or white, right or wrong, etc. There are myriad shades of gray, although some people believe some issues are black and white. But even here, people won’t always agree on what exactly is a black or white situation.

Most people would probably agree that murdering someone is wrong. Yet, sometimes killing can be justified if it’s in self-defense or in the defense of your family or your nation.

The debate could go on endlessly.

And that’s what we often have in reference to some letters to the editor. There’s an endless debate over what types of letters are appropriate to run and which ones cross some constantly changing line from opinion to just being insulting or offensive in some way.

A recently published letter calling the GOP the “Party of Hate” added fuel to this ongoing debate. Obviously, it was an opinion, just like calling Democrats “unpatriotic tax and spend advocates.” The phases can be offensive to some, a statement of fact to others and yet a third group of people would probably just shrug off both comments as being political rhetoric.

Was the letter appropriate to run? Some readers adamantly said “no” but others found the statement, in their opinion, true.

As a newspaper, we try to be fair and we don’t want to be insulting. The easy letters to reject are the ones that espouse prejudice and bigotry. They go far beyond the realm of opinion.

But in the example, the letter writer was listing issues that Republicans generally oppose. However, instead of saying they were against such issues, the writer said Republicans “hated” those issues.

It would be wonderful if all letters were written in a pure, non-offensive manner or in a disgusting, insulting fashion. It would be easy then to decide which ones to publish and which ones to toss in the waste basket.

But the line is often not clear and so we have to make — you guessed it — a judgment call. Was it the right call, some readers say “yes,” others say “no.”

We can’t second guess all of our readers, but don’t worry, we’ll keep trying.

Listening to both sides

2010-09-01T15:14:00.000-07:00

Today (Wednesday, Sept. 1) the Editorial Board met with three members of the Detroit area Moslem community: Dr. Tariq Dimashqi, President of Muslim Unity Center in West Bloomfield Hills; Victor Begg, Chairman of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan; and Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Michigan (CAIR-MI).

The meeting was in response to the editorial on the proposed Islamic center/mosque for New York City as well as to discuss what has been termed “Islamophobia,” the apparent rising fear of and discrimination being shown toward people of the Islamic faith. Our editorial contended that although they have a right to construct the center on the site, which is a couple blocks from the site of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, out of respect for those killed in the attack, Islamic officials should choose another site.

The discussion lasted almost two hours and some valid points were brought up by the guests as well as members of the editorial board. No major solutions were created during the session but that really wasn’t the point. The visitors were given a chance to express their concerns and the open dialogue, which had already been established between The Oakland Press and local Islamic groups, was continued.

As I always stress, the Opinion Page is meant to be a forum for expressing opinions and to be fair, we always give individuals and groups a chance to respond to whatever is published on that page.

Obviously, the representatives didn’t agree with our editorial but at least they were offered a chance to explain their side.

No matter how you describe what being “fair” means, the best way for the Opinion Page to be fair is to always allow opposing views to be heard.

With opinions, it's OK to disagree

2010-08-30T06:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Just how "consistent" should we be?

2010-08-19T12:24:00.000-07:00

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.

It's tough picking races for endorsements

2010-08-12T08:38:00.000-07:00

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?

Endorsements are a complicated procedure

2010-08-05T11:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Letter deadline is best way to be fair

2010-07-29T14:45:00.000-07:00

It’s as predictable as rain in July and snow in January and the amount can seem equally as heavy.

I’m talking about election-related letters that I receive after the published deadline.

In the case of Tuesday’s primary election, we set a deadline for 5 p.m. Friday, July 23 to receive any letters of endorsement related to the primary election. We ran an information item on the Opinion Page every day for almost a week before deadline and we regularly ran the notice two or three times a week before that.

Readers should have seen it yet invariably, we always receive a number of letters after the deadline and they are usually accompanied by some consternation from the writers as to why they can’t still be published.

I try to explain the policy — sometimes I’m successful, sometimes I’m not.
As I’ve said before but it bares repeating, experience has taught us not to run letters closer than about a week before an election. We do this to be reasonable, fair and out of a sense of practicality.

The Oakland Press used to run letters even on the day of the election. But we found that people were waiting to submit their letters until just before election day hoping for publication on that day. The general theory was that the last letter read by people before voting would influence their selections. This created a flood of letters that logically were impossible to deal with because we just didn’t have the space to run them all.

So, by establishing deadlines, we allow our readers to express their opinions and get them published. It seems to be the fairest way to handle election-related letters.
Admittedly, particularly this year, we’ve had to bend our rule on running letters a week before the election.

Because of the last minute flood of correspondence, we ran election related letters through Thursday, although we had hoped to run them all by Tuesday. Logically, because of space limitations, we couldn’t do it. All the letters were received by the deadline but we missed our publication deadline. Was it fair to run the letters within a week of the election? We think it was but let me know how you feel.

In the meantime, remember that this Tuesday is just the first half of the election year. The general election on Nov. 2 is looming, set up by the results of Tuesday’s primary.

So, we’ll have a new deadline for election-related letters. Probably around Oct. 20 but that isn’t set yet, although readers will be fully informed after the primary. However, there is one condition. People must read the Opinion Page to see the notice. We haven’t figured out a better way of informing the public about our letter policy other than through notices on the Opinion Page. We can publish the notices but we can’t make people read them. However, I hope you do.

And, unless you’ve cast an absentee ballot, be sure to vote Tuesday.

All correspondence needs follow up calls

2010-07-27T15:43:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press deadline for election-related letters to the editor was 5 p.m. Friday, July 23.

Loyal readers probably saw the notice we published regularly the past few weeks. We printed it every day last week — for good reason.

We wanted to make sure people understood that there was a deadline. Yet, as we could have predicted, I have been receiving phone calls all this week asking why they can’t submit an endorsement letter for the Aug. 3 primary election.

Some say they submitted a letter last week and why didn’t I get it? I don’t know. I can’t publish letters I don’t receive. That’s why people need to follow up after they send in a submission to make I got it.

Admittedly, some callers may be — shall we say fibbing (I don’t like to use the word lying unless it is absolutely accurate). But, generally, we trust our readers to be honest, as naive as that policy may be. However, we've found that most people usually do tell the truth when it comes to things like this.

We figure if they are conscientious enough to write a letter, they probably are telling the truth. Their mistake was not following through to make sure the letter was received.

It’s important to follow through with all correspondence but it is particularly critical when there are deadlines because pending events, such as the primary election.

We try to accommodate all letter writers and run their submissions as expediently as possible, although currently we have a good two week backlog. But some times we run out of time and that’s unfortunate, because all letter writers have a right to express their opinion and The Oakland Press works diligently to be their vehicle.

Remember, when submitting letters, do so to my e-mail address, which is allan.adler@oakpress.com. Don’t forget, if you’re one character off, it won’t get to me.

OP to go live on primary election night

2010-07-22T12:54:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Press plans to bring readers three hours of live primary election night coverage on Aug. 3.

It will be a first such event for the newspaper. Through a process called “livestreaming,” we’ll be appearing live on your computer screen from 9 p.m. to midnight. All you have to do is log on to our website at www.theoaklandpress.com to watch us as we monitor and report the latest election results.

I will be moderator for the evening, which will include visits from several local political figures. So far Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson is expected to drop by as are State Rep. Chuck Moss, R-Birmingham, and Rep. Tim Melton, D-Auburn Hills. In addition, we expect to have Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson stop in.

From time to time throughout the night we’ll have our local reporters sit in and discuss the results as they are tabulated. Staffers will also review the figures and give their analysis of why or why not an election went the way it did.

We’re cautiously excited about doing this. If the “dress rehearsal” conducted this past Tuesday is any indication, the election night programming should go very well because this week’s practice session was anything but smooth. We ended up actually going online for about 40 minutes — and that’s a problem when you have nothing prepared.

Executive Editor Glenn Gilbert, myself and Political Reporter Charlie Crumm drew deeply upon our political knowledge as we ad-libbed our way through the rehearsal while the technicians checked out the equipment and made sure everything was working.

As every “bad” dress rehearsal should do, it taught us a few things. Probably the biggest lesson is something we've always known but it was definitely reinforced this week — nothing beats advanced preparation and planning if you want something to go smoothly.

Old tool still useful today

2010-07-21T07:47:00.000-07:00

Former vice-presidential candidate and political activist Sarah Palin is being panned for urging Muslims in New York to “refudiate” their plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from the 911 ground zero site of the twin towers.

In a series of tweets she asked “peaceful” New Yorkers and “peace-seeking” Muslims to oppose the plans. One of her tweets reportedly asked Muslims to “refudiate" their plans.

“Refudiate” is not a word, at least according to Webster’s New World Dictionary, third college edition. Maybe she meant “repudiate,” which means to “refuse to have anything to do with..” among other definitions.

But I’m not going to try to second guess Ms. Palin. In fact, I’m not going to even weigh in on the community center and mosque controversy.

But there is a very simple lesson to be learned from her misuse of the English language. We have more than enough high tech devices today to help us communicate with each other — from cell phones to computers to whatever. But many people seem to forget a very old-fashioned yet extremely useful tool that can help all writers and public officials.

If Ms. Palin had only taken a few minutes to look up “refudiate” in a dictionary, she might have saved herself days of embarrassment. Journalists still use this well-established and very informative book — at least they should. It can and has saved considerable angst and distress when their stories get published.

In this fast-paced world, sometimes it is wise to slow down and double check your information.

Some letters are just too personal

2010-07-15T07:52:00.000-07:00

We try to run every letter to the editor we receive, as I’ve stated in past blogs. But some letters, for varying reasons, must be rejected.

One of those instances is when a letter becomes too personal.

The Opinion Page is meant as a means for The Oakland Press readers to express their views. Some times their opinions can be based on personal experiences and that’s just fine. But other times, personal accounts aren’t appropriate.

For example, we received a letter from man who supported the Wall Street reform bills in Congress. One of the reasons he said he was for the legislation was that he had lost $160,000 in retirement funds because of the stock market crash a few years ago. He was upset that while average citizens, like himself, saw their modest retirement nest eggs vanish, top executives in the banks and mortgage companies were receiving million-dollar bonuses.

Although he was relating a personal experience, what happened to him was similar to what happened to millions of Americans, including thousands right here in Oakland County. And, he was commenting on a spending political issue. So, his personal story and lettered expressed views that probably thousands of residents hold. Also, he was urging passage of the bills, so he didn’t keep the letter completely personal. Consequently, it was appropriate for us to run.

However, some letters focus too much on the writer. For example, there was a letter from a man who had lost his job and eventually was evicted from his apartment. The man was basically issuing a plea for help.

While we sympathized with him, the letter was not suitable for the Opinion Page. He had made it too personal. All we could do was suggest he contact social services.
Admittedly, it’s a judgment call. Some people may feel we should have published the letter highlighting this man’s plight. But sometimes its better to allow an individual some privacy, even if they don’t initially seem to want it.
Remember, often letters get responses — and sometimes not very positive ones. To publish the man’s letter and name would have put him up for not only sympathy but also scrutiny and possible scorn.

Like I said, it’s a judgment call.

Guess who is calling

2010-07-14T07:24:00.000-07:00

As the primary election battles heat up, many of us are finding that our telephones are ringing much more often than we would like.

They are the automated phone calls — often called robo calls — urging you to vote for a particular candidate. Now if the candidate were truly on the other line, then maybe the call might be worth taking. But listening to a political recording is just a waste of our valuable time. The calls are in intrusion into our homes and our private lives and people have a right to be upset about them.

Unfortunately, there’s not a lot we can do. A recent letter to the editor suggested an interesting solution to the bombardment of political phone calls. The letter writer, rightly aggravated by the calls, suggested that recipients vote against any candidate whose campaign includes these irritating and pesky campaign tools.

At first, it sounds like quite a reasonable reaction to protest the disruptions of your household — at almost all hours of the night.

But the plan runs into a snag if both or all of the candidates in a race call you. Maybe a Plan B in such cases would be to vote for the candidate who called you the least number of times.

However, that would also involve keeping track of how many times each candidate called, which could result in extensive extra work for you.

Consequently, the best alternative is just be to hang up.

Being fair is not always easy

2010-07-08T16:08:00.000-07:00

What’s fair? That’s the overriding question we ask when it comes to The Oakland Press Opinion Page.

What is fair to the readers? What is a fair policy concerning letters to the editor and guest opinions? What qualifies as a letter, which is limited to 250 words and what qualifies as guest opinion, which can run up to 600 words?
There are no definite answers but we’ve established some guidelines that help us decide.

For example, during the election season, which we are fully into, candidates are constantly wanting us to run guest opinions from them about a certain topic or issue. But usually the opinions are geared to “voting for me” type writing. That’s OK but if we run one such guest opinion, we have to run them all — and space is at a premium. We just don’t have it.

So, loosely, when it comes to guest opinions from political candidates, we put them online. We believe they have something to say and as potential law makers and leaders, our readers might want to hear more detail about their plans — more than what the news side profiles can offer.

But space is limited, as I’ve said.

We make exceptions for candidates if they are incumbent officials and write about a topic related to their work for the general public. For example, the treasurer writing about finances or the sheriff writing about law enforcement are guest opinions that we would try to get on the Opinion Page, provided they stick to one topic and don’t throw in a “vote for me” sentence. When the guest opinion becomes a plea to win votes, it has to go online — to be fair.

We are constantly reviewing this policy and we admit, sometimes a guest opinion gets placed online that should go in the regular edition and one gets placed on the Opinion Page that might have been more of an online piece.

Over-all, we do the best we can to be fair.

Letters come in waves during election time

2010-06-29T14:41:00.000-07:00

To say that The Oakland Press is flooded with letters to the editor around election time is an understatement.

People during these electoral periods want to express their views on a pending millage or bond issue and on who they think is the best candidate for a public office. The goal, generally, is to try to convince others that their view or endorsement is accurate and should be followed.

Many times, letter writers are testing the waters. They may not be completely sure of their position and so they are trying to see how many people agree or disagree with them.

As with all letters to the editor, we try to run them on a first come, first serve basis. That’s why you may see an influx of letters for or against a topic and then another influx expressing the opposite view.

One thing that we like to make “perfectly clear” is that if we run more letters for a particular issue than against it — or vice versa — that doesn’t mean The Oakland Press necessarily endorses the issue. It only means that at a particular time, we got more letters for the proposal than against it.

Although we usually run the letters as we get them and if there is a backlog, some letters may not get in for a week or two. However, sometimes when issues are particularly “hot” or time sensitive, we bend the rule a little.

For example, around election time, if we get 10 letters about the primary but because of other letters we receive, we weren’t be able to get all of them in by the letter deadline, then we may run a couple letters out of order.

And “deadline” is a critical point here. We usually set a deadline for receiving letters to the editor for a specific election one to two weeks before the balloting. Then, we try to get those letters into the paper no later than a week before the election.

For example, for the Aug. 3 primary, all letters dealing with candidates or ballot issues must be in to us by no later than 5 p.m., Friday, July 23. No election related letters or guest opinions will run after Tuesday, July 27. The maximum length for these letters is 250 words, unless they merely endorse a particular candidate, then the limit is 150 words.

Obviously, the deadline for receiving letters must be advanced enough to allow us to get all of them received on time into the newspaper by about a week before the election.

There are reasons for not running letters within a week of an election. They are called fairness and practicality.

The Oakland Press used to run letters even on the day of the election. But we found that people were waiting to submit their letters until just before election day hoping for publication on election day. The general theory was that the last letter read by people before voting would influence their selections.

This created a flood letters that logically were impossible to deal with because we just didn’t have the space to run them all.

So, by establishing deadlines, we allow our readers to express their opinions and get them published. It seems to be the fairest way to handle election-related letters. At least we haven’t found a better way yet, although we’re always open to suggestions.

Remember, the operative question is what is the most reasonable and fair policy?

Is GM unfair to U.S. taxpayers

2010-06-29T11:55:00.000-07:00

I have received several phone calls from people who are questioning GM’s creating 29,000 jobs in South America, as reported in a recent news story.

The readers, basically, argue that American tax dollars helped GM survive and now the company is thanking the general public by creating jobs in other countries when jobs are needed here.

It’s a valid argument and I’m not going to defend GM, I don’t have enough information. Presumably, however, GM made the decision based on business considerations and what’s best for the company.
But such action does lead many people to question the wisdom of last year’s auto bailout loans.

And it’s understandable that GM’s actions in dealing with foreign firms for any company service would not sit well with Americans. The argument that we’re living in a global economy may be true but it doesn’t help ease the concerns and pains of problems here in the United States.

One thing is fairly certain, if GM had gone under, Michigan would have been devastated. Would we have survived? Possibly but not without great economic pain and suffering.

However, GM, in a much more stripped down form, is still producing cars and providing jobs in Michigan.

I guess we just have to hope that when business is sent elsewhere, it’s in the best interest of the company and helps keep it operating here in Michigan.

Election endorsements take planning

2010-06-24T06:19:00.000-07:00

Election endorsements are a staple in most newspapers, even yet today with the constantly changing face of the print media.

But selecting the races to endorse takes quite bit of strategy and planning because scheduling the interviews of candidates is often a challenge and sometimes can be a logistical nightmare.

There are just not enough hours in the day to accommodate all of the candidates and representatives of various groups seeking approval or opposing millage issues.

So, for the primary, we don’t plan to endorse in every election race. It would be impossible. Because of the volume of candidates, we have to be very selective.

Generally, our policy for the primary is a wait and see one. We will examine the results of the primary election and then decide which races appear to be the most competitive or prominent on the November ballot. Most likely we will be endorsing in the governor’s race and Congressional races. But outside of those contests, we’ll have to see what happens on Aug. 3.

There is one primary race that looks pretty interesting, even though it’s for a position that usually isn’t high profile. The race for an Oakland County probate judge seat has five contenders. Based on the high level of competition and some requests from readers, we will be interviewing all five candidates in July and write an endorsement editorial for the end of the month.

Although you don’t see a lot of advertising and campaign adds by probate court prospects, the duties of the judge are critical and affect most of us, in one way or another at one time or another.

Among many other things, probate court may over see your estate or the estate of a loved one who is recently deceased. It also becomes involved when in determining guardianships for children as well as care for adults who don’t have the capacity to fend for themselves.

The five candidates are J. Martin Brennan, Rochester Hills; Dana Margaret Hathaway and Barbara B. Murphy, both of Birmingham; Kathleen Ryan of Bloomfield Township; and Jamie Marie Verdi of Rochester.

There are a number of millage votes that probably will get our scrutiny and a thumbs up or thumbs down after we’ve studied the issues.

They include SMART, the suburban bus system, which is seeking a 0.59-mill property tax renewal to fund suburban bus service in the participating communities called “opt-ins.” Only communities that opt in to local bus service pay the property tax in Oakland County. Wayne County also has an opt-in system for its communities while Macomb County’s is county-wide.

The opt-in communities are Auburn Hills, Berkley, Beverly Hills, Bingham Farms, Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Clawson, Farmington, Farmington Hills, Ferndale, Franklin, Hazel Park, Huntington Woods, Madison Heights, Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge, Pontiac, Royal Oak, Royal Oak Township, Southfield, Troy, Walled Lake and West Bloomfield.

Oakland County Parks is seeking a 0.2415-mill property tax renewal for 10 years to pay for operating its network of parks and golf courses around the county.

Also, Oakland Community College is seeking a 0.8-mill property tax renewal for 10 years, beginning in 2012.

The endorsement process can be complicated but it’s also important because many people rely on us to offer some guidance or at least make suggestions that they can agree with or reject.

Watch out for "urban e-mails"

2010-06-15T16:11:00.000-07:00

There’s a mass e-mail that has been floating around in cyberspace for several years promoting a rumor that should have died long ago.

But, it’s in cyberspace and continues to work its way around the web. If you’ve received it once, you’ll probably receive it again — if not this year then the next, or the next or the next...

The Internet has given “urban legends” seemingly ever-lasting life and it’s a shame but it’s also an example of why people have to be cautious when they go online or even when they just open their own e-mails.

I don’t want to re-ignite, any more than it has been, the false information, so I’m going to keep this as generic as possible. Basically, a company was accused of repackaging its product in a patriotic fashion and included the pledge of allegiance on it. However, to be “politically correct” the company allegedly omitted the words “Under God.”

In checking with the company, which most mass e-mail senders don’t do, I was informed that the e-mail was an out right lie. I was told that there not only won’t be a pledge of allegiance on the product’s packaging but there is no patriotic redesign at all.

We’ll discuss this in more depth in my Friday blog and I’ll explain why most people should probably develop at least a little bit of journalistic skepticism when surfing the web.

Help us in our "Ben Franklin Project"

2010-06-10T13:23:00.000-07:00

I've requested that readers submit letters to me in conjunction with the Journal Register Corporation’s Ben Franklin Project. The Oakland Press is owned by the corporation.

The project is an innovative effort to utilize the online high-tech resources available and put out a newspaper. The Oakland Press and its sister publications will produce such an edition for July 4.

While the goal is to provide readers with a newspaper that will hopefully look pretty-much the way it usually does, the behind the scenes activities, particularly from a production standpoint, are harried and new.

The project has a number of aspects but basically there are two features. One is to produce a newspaper using available online technology. The second is an attempt to get the reader more involved in the newspaper. We not only want reactions to stories but we’re also trying to get direction from the readers as to the types of stories they would like covered. In some cases, readers might even be able to suggest some questions during the interview process in writing a story.

Getting the readers more involved has been generally called “crowd-sourcing,” a new catch word that can include any number of activities and efforts where an audience or group of people are asked for input.

That’s why I’m asking, for the Opinion Page, for readers to write a letter on one of two topics:
A. In your opinion, who is the most patriotic citizen you know or have heard about? The person can be a living or deceased local, state or national figure or an historical one; OR
B. Is the Fourth of July Holiday celebrated in true, patriotic fashion? What do you like about it and what would you do to improve or enhance it?
Please keep your letters to about 250 words or less. However, participation in this special project will not preclude you from writing another letter for the month of July.

Please send your letters by e-mail to me at “allan.adler@oakpress.com.” Any questions, please call me at (248) 745-4626.

Help me and The Oakland Press make this experiment a success. But time is getting short. Because of the different production processes, I need the letters by Thursday, June 17.

Debating the debate

2010-06-04T11:09:00.000-07:00

Should both sides be heard in editorials?

Certainly, when reporters write impartial stories, they are obligated to obtain comments and information from both sides of an issue. That’s the only way to present a balanced report to the readers.

But for editorials, do you need to present both sides? It’s a debatable answer. Certainly, it would be a reasonable action. But is it necessary?

When you write an opinion piece, whether an editorial or guest opinion, you certainly need to back up your views with facts. There’s no debate about that. A well-written piece will use facts to support whatever is the writer’s argument. For example, if you believe interest rates on credit cards are too high, then it is only expected that you list examples of those rates. People — credit card company officials in particular — may not agree but at least you’ve presented some facts.

But how far do you go to express the other’s point of view. You could say that the interest provided badly needed revenue to support the bank or financial institution offering the card.

Generally, if you present the other side’s point of view, it’s usually in an attempt to refute it. For example, you could concede that the interest earned on credit cards supports the financial institution but say that the profit margin is too high — that it only should be 10 percent instead of 20. That’s your opinion.

The bottom line question is how much do you argue for the side you are opposing, if at all? Remember, in an opinion piece, you are trying to convince people that your point of view the best.

What do you think?

The Oakland Press wants to hear from you

2010-06-01T16:14:00.000-07:00

We want to hear from you
The Oakland Press would like you to participate in the corporate-wide Benjamin Franklin Project, which explores innovative ways to develop local news stories and present them to our readers.
We will be publishing a special project edition on July 4. Readers are encouraged to express their views on one of the following topics:
A. In your opinion, who is the most patriotic citizen you know or have heard about? The person can be a living or deceased local, state or national figure or an historical one; OR
B. Is the Fourth of July Holiday celebrated in true, patriotic fashion? What do you like about it and what would you do to improve or enhance it?;
Please keep your letters to about 250 words or less. However, participation in this special project will not preclude you from writing another letter for the month of July.
Please send your letters by e-mail to me at “allan.adler@oakpress.com." Any questions, please call me at (248) 745-4626.

Another talk with an independent senator

2010-05-27T11:06:00.000-07:00

Term-limited State Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township, is the kind of leader you wish wasn’t being forced to leave office.

Officially, a Republican, he is independent minded and not afraid to express his views. He’s also the kind of Lansing leader that you know wouldn’t be afraid to cross party lines if he felt there was an issue worth supporting.
As he states in talking about legislators, “I don’t think its enough to self-describe ourselves as a Democrat or Republican. It take more courage to vote for a tax increase than it does to borrow money and increase the debt. Elected people need to take their constitutional oath of office seriously.”

The outspoken Patterson has been quite verbal on his campaign to wake up journalists to their role.

He has said he is worried that with so many newspapers in financial trouble, our state and nation may lose what are the pillars of our democracy.
In fact, he felt newspaper were so important he introduced Senate Bill 1285, which supposedly would have put a deposit on every newspaper sold, similar to the bottle deposit.

He later admitted he didn’t have any intention of seeing the bill through the legislature and passed into law, he just wanted to get our attention. He did.

Once we woke up, we noticed a second bill, Senate Bill 1323, that Patterson also said was geared to making his point about the importance of newspapers and particularly reporters. This second bill would have established a voluntary state registry of reporters, listing their credentials.

It’s not a bad idea although don’t look for it anytime soon.
The second bill is a bit more critical of the press.

“The idea again,” Patterson explains, “is to try and provoke thought to get people to understand that our democratic system is heavily reliant on the media being able to get information to ‘we. The people.’ What I have witnessed is fewer and fewer reporters actually coming in to (legislative sessions) and reporting what we do.”
He’s right again. Unfortunately, limited staff and resources makes it more difficult, if not impossible to cover some events and government sessions in person. The Oakland Press used to have a Lansing reporter but we lost that person to budget cuts. Now, we rely on wire service news and the free-lance work of Tim Skubick.
Patterson continued “Senate Bill 1323 was designed to get people to realize there are different levels of people who report the news. I had assumed every reporter had a journalism degree, but that’s not true.”

Experience has always played a key role in a reporter or journalist’s career. A degree can get a person into the newsroom for an interview but experience usually is what gets that individual the job. Skill and talent are important but experience is what hones those characteristics and turns a graduate of Journalism into a good reporter.
The role of newspapers and its reporters is critical to our society. The fact newspapers are addressed in the first amendment to the Constitution is a testament to how our founding fathers felt about the press.

Patterson sums it up quite nicely when he says “The job of a reporter is very very important if this constitutional republic is to survive.”

Primary election letters policy

2010-05-20T10:10:00.000-07:00

Although the primary election is still a couple months away, with the recent filing of petitions by candidates who are running for office, we have to concede that the “election season” is here.

And it’s not going to end until after the November general election, if then. It seems over the past few years whatever “honeymoon” newly elected candidates received from the political parties is gone. New politicians used to be given a few months to see what they were actually going to do in office.

Now, the minute one person is declared a winner in an election, there are two or three others already campaigning to unseat him.

So, as the primary looms and the general election isn’t too much further away, it’s time to discuss The Oakland Press policy on election-related letters to the editor.
We normally get letters in waves and so we have a backlog.

We try to print all letters that we receive, provided they meet some basic criteria. They must be around 250 words and not use foul language. You can express your opinion but if you’re going to state something as a fact, it must hold up as such.

The most time intensive aspect of processing letters is checking out what writers are calling facts. We can’t argue with your opinion but we will not knowingly print something that’s stated to be fact when it isn’t. To give you a simple example, if someone says the capital of Michigan is Flint, we’re not going to let that go in a letter. If possible, we’re correct the error. If not, we’re take out the statement.

Also,let’s make something perfectly clear — to coin old, trite phrase — we reserve the right to edit your letters. We promise to try and not change the meaning of your letter or your opinion. Sometimes, the letter is too long and needs to be cut to fill the space available. Sometimes it carries incorrect information.
We cannot publish a letter stating something as fact when it isn’t. If nothing else, it affects our creditability as a newspaper. But even more important, it could leave the newspaper and the writer open for a lawsuit.

That’s another restriction to letters to the editor, we cannot allow libelous statements to be printed. You can say the mayor isn’t doing a good job but you can’t say he’s stealing public money unless there’s an ongoing public investigation or if the individual was convicted of the crime.

You also can’t say the mayor is running around with his neighbor’s wife. Even if it’s true, that’s an invasion of his privacy, which provides more grounds for a lawsuit.
So, with these reasonable restrictions in mind, let’s take a look at our policy involving election-related letters.

All letters dealing with the Aug. 3 primary election must be received by The Oakland Press no later than 5 p.m., Friday, July 23. This will give us time to process them and get them in by Tuesday, July 27. No election-related letter will run after that date. This is done to be fair to all readers. We don’t publish letters within a week of the election because everyone would want their letter to be run on the day of the election or the day just before. Obviously, we don’t have the space to accommodate all of those letters.

And speaking of space, because of our limitations, the maximum length for these letters that endorse a particular candidate are limited is 150 words.

So, please feel free to e-mail at allan.adler@oakpress.com or just mail letters to me at The Oakland Press, P.O. Box 436009, Pontiac, MI 48343. But please, be sure if they are election-related to observe the deadline and length restrictions.

Tea Party Movement debate

2010-05-17T16:13:00.000-07:00

Is the Tea Party Movement going to turn into a third political party?
Supposedly there is a petition drive underway trying to get the party on the election ballot.
The action is drawing strong responses from people who say it is not a political party. They are adamantly denying the suggestion and claim that any efforts to turn the movement into a political party are probably being made by Democrats in an effort to discredit the movement.
We are starting to receive letters espousing both positions in this debate.
Until a formal party is established, The Oakland Press cannot say yes or no to the question.
So, to be fair to our readers, we will run letters that have taken both sides of the issue.
As heated as the demonstrations have been by tea party rally participates, we expect the debate over this issue to be equally as passionate.
Let us know what you think.