I can't see the article, because my firewall raises too many suspicions about Clarke's "Uninstalled" site.

I say the important factor is that writers to the editor are a self-selected group, so the struggle for balance is not some statistically-valid representation of the range of sentiment. At best, balance is an effort to ensure that a variety of perspectives are presented for consideration and informed debate.

There is also whatever tension arises because readers or other influences on the editors consider that their viewpoint is not being represented. Sometimes, the choir wants the comforting echo of being preached to.

My suggestion is that the op-ed and letters pages provide dimensions and perspectives that we can be thoughtful about. Any attempt to interpret self-selected (and editor-screened) material as representative of something is misplaced. As for those self-selected, non-statistical "poll" responses happily published in newspapers and elsewhere, I would ignore them completely.

Hmmm...

Not sure what's tripping off your firewall, but my apologies. There's really nothing unsafe on my site, afaik. Not even any naughty words anymore - not since my 6 year old son started reading the blog :-)

Here's a direct link to the original piece in The Post-Crescent: http://tinyurl.com/2h97z

/m

Hmmm...part II.

Looks like it may all have been a genuine mistake. The Post-Crescent has posted an updated editorial with a much clearer explanation of their original intent, at that same address here: http://tinyurl.com/2h97z

/m