Irresponsible, inconsiderate

Dear editors:

First of all, I do not question the editors' right to publish the hate mail of any individual known or unknown to this college community. Rather, I question-on several counts-your journalistic judgment in printing the letter to the editor in your February 20 issue.

I also assume that the editors aspire to model Loquitur after reputable newspapers of society at large.

In the first instance, hate letters contribute very little to debate and dialogue in a democratic society. A reputable journal informs its public in a way that makes reasoned debate possible.

Our society at large depends mightily on news information and opinion in order for its members to be active citizens in the political processes of democracy. Debate, discussion, dialogue and disagreement are all important aspects of our democratic way of life.

No reputable journal, however, gives vent to every or any individual's diatribe laced with a venom that puts debate beyond the reach of civil society. Informing us of someone's personal hatred is no more enlightening than seeing people rage on television talk shows. The format of this shock technique is beyond analysis and debate.

Supermarket tabloids sometimes strain the difference between legal rights and moral obligations when they pander to the prurient tastes of the worst in us, and claim a defense of free speech and the First Amendment as a reason for printing these personal messages. This is sloppy thinking at best; and at worst, callused reaping of financial gain from human frailty. In your journalism lab at Cabrini College you study the New York Times, which you receive daily. While the National Enquirer might be inclined to promote obvious hatred that is beyond honest dialogue, do you think for a minute that the Times would have printed this letter? More importantly, do you wonder why this is the case?

Better judgment in support of quality reporting would have rejected the writer·s hate letter on moral grounds; and - if she thinks you must print her letter - invited her to test her legal first amendment rights in court. There is no right to free speech that obliges you to print her expressions of hatred.

There is an obligation to promote quality news reportingespecially regarding highly important issues such as race and/or ethnic bias. The hate letter, in and of itself, simply has no merit in advancing any reasoned opinion about the alleged substance of the letter. (Notice here, that in this letter of mine, we are not debating the sorry state of prejudice in America, but rather the soundness of Loquitur's decision to print the letter!)

This raises another concern regarding your decision: The shock approach that you chose in presenting anti-Semitism to your readers, has made the media (Loquitur), bigger than the story itself (prejudice). No media outlet nor media person should wrest popular attention and focus from the issues that are set before the public. How many reporters and television commentators can you name, who have become celebrities in their own right at the expense of the stories they formerly reported? Loquitur's decision to print personal hate mail should not be news. But you have made it so. You have trivialized the serious issue of hatred to the level of a drug store tabloid. Your self serving actions beg your readers to question your motives for printing the letter. Are you trying to create controversy by shocking us? (We want information and analysis - if we want to be shocked we can watch Geraldo). Do you think we faculty and other campus leaders are short on teaching materials regarding prejudice? (We can use all the help we can get, but prefer to be granted some credit for intelligence). Notice how you have drawn the controversy to yourself in the worst tradition of pandering tabloids. You are worthy of a better tradition of delivering news and analysis to Cabrini College.

Finally, you have played into the hands of the bigot whose message you delivered. It is typical of hate messages to be loosely wrapped in a package that has a simplistic appeal to many people.

The ruse is so thinly disguised that it would be humorous if the hatred were not so palpable. Your letter writer purports to be upset with the Internal Revenue Service (who isn't?).

After enlisting our support against the IRS, we are then led through the tiresome conspiracy theory of those people whom we are really supposed to hate. And here is my point: You chose not to publish a disclaimer. You chose not to do a side bar opinion nor an editorial. But you did choose to feature the letter with a bold banner declaring: IRATE VS. IRS INCORPORATED. You inadvertently (or not?) gave credence to the writers ruse - if you hate the IRS, then you should hate the Jews! Your manner is more effective than an editorial supporting the writer's bigotry.

Believe me, this letter is written in good faith. I am grateful for the opportunity to have shared scores of my essays and opinion pieces through Loquitur over the years. I simply want you to reflect on the value, purpose and quality of the newsprint medium. Please do not take your journalistic responsibilities lightly. You are serving a public community of readers.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Romano professor of philosophy

Whatwereyouthinking?

Dear Editors, The February 20, 1997 issue of the Loquitur contains a letter by Patricia Horton. The address given in the letter leads us to believe that Ms. Horton has no connection with Cabrini College.

The faculty members of the religious studies department