MEDIA
Objective newspapers are best sources for info
Guest columnist Greg Euston presents a tempting argument for newspapers becoming openly partisan in news coverage (“Taking sides in reporting the news,” Opinion, July 7). Newspapers would get more loyal subscribers, readers would get what they want, etc. It looks like everybody wins. The only casualty is the truth.
Today’s “information age” (especially the Internet) provides an almost infinite variety of information sources — and an incredible abundance of misinformation. This has produced a culture of indifference to objective, rational truth. Prominent groups argue with other prominent groups, with each group laying claim to “the truth, as they see it.” Stated simply, each group feels free to choose its own “truth.” Debate among these groups is futile, because minds are already set and closed.
The only rational way to resolve such conflicts is to consider and respect all reliable sources of information before deciding what is “true.” Objective newspapers are the largest surviving sources of reliable information.
Bill Fokes, Braselton
SUPREME COURT
Function of justices is called ‘rule of law’
Contrary to Elena Kagan’s philosophy as quoted in “A judicial change to believe in” (Opinion, July 6), the Supreme Court should not “defer to the choices of elected officials except in the most extreme cases.” Instead, they should firmly and swiftly strike down any legislation that violates the Constitution, whatever the degree. Liberty is lost a little at a time.
Of course there are difficult cases, but that’s the purpose of the Supreme Court — to decide those cases that are so close that they cannot be decided by the lower courts. The “extreme” cases are most unlikely ever to reach the higher courts.
The function of the nine justices is to decide if a matter is constitutional — not if it should be. It’s called “the rule of law.” Thomas Sowell’s column (“Beyond media hype on Second Amendment,” Opinion, July 6) is a more logical commentary.
John Stanfield, Peachtree City
GOVERNMENT
Berkeley Lake letter misrepresents the facts
John Pilger’s letter concerning Berkeley Lake’s dam repair misrepresents the facts (“Those who don’t live on lake shouldn’t foot bill”, Readers write, Opinion, June 5).
FEMA has agreed to pay a portion of the dam repair cost because it recognizes that some of the damage was the result of extreme flooding. As far as a tax increase is concerned, no one outside the city limits of Berkeley Lake, including Mr. Pilger, is being asked to foot the bill by “freeloaders.”
To his assertion that “this attitude ... illustrates what ails ... America’s financial situation,” I reply: greed is not good, and selfishness is not a virtue.
Berkeley Lake’s City Council has wisely decided to ask all of our community’s citizens to join together to restore and conserve our lake (and property values). If you do not live here, this will not affect you at all. Surely even Mr. Pilger would agree that neighbors should join together in support of the common good of their local community.
George Kennedy, Berkeley Lake
