There were 23 feedback items total. Only one was in agreement with the ignorant writer of the editorial. They just wrote, “I agree” and nothing more. The rest were detailed and essentially accurate in all details. I’m extremely annoyed that they took three and half weeks to post the feedback. LONG after anyone reading the paper would notice it. Media bias? I suspect so. I wrote to them to ask:
From: Joe Huffman [mailto:JoeH@joehuffman.org]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:13 PM
To: ‘Indiana Statesman’
Subject: RE: Feedback Moderation (Indiana Statesman)
Thank you for posting my feedback. However, I find it difficult to hide my annoyance at the long delay in doing so. 95% of the feedback you received and posted was pro-freedom and pointed out the ignorance of the anti-freedom position presented. Was the delay in the approval of the feedback due to the pro-freedom position? Is it the position of the Indiana Statesman that the pro-freedom position is to be suppressed by delaying the availability of that viewpoint until virtually no one will see it?
From: Indiana Statesman [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:26 PM
Subject: Feedback Moderation (Indiana Statesman)
The feedback you recently submitted to Indiana Statesman has been approved by the moderator, and is active on the site.
Review of your feedback:
Topic: Gun Control
Name: Joe Huffman
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Occupation: Research Scientist
It would help the debate if the debaters did some basic
fact checking. For example:
I could go on for pages on all the errors in fact and
logic found in this debate but the above should be
sufficient to encourage a bit more research before
putting words to print.
If you have any questions regarding this, please forward this e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you received this e-mail in error, or you were not the originator of this post, then please contact us at email@example.com.
Thanks for your participation.
– Indiana Statesman