Maybe The Post-Star's afraid to let their reporting speak for itself

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

The corporate media is hypersensitive to criticism, isn't it.

Not all criticism, mind you.

It loves the simplistic 'the media is too liberal/conservative' dichotomy. If both extremes hate you, goes the logic, you must be doing Pulitzer-esque work. It allows them to abdicate any responsibility for substantive analysis.

The kinds of criticism the corporate media doesn't like is accusations that it's shutting out diverse voices. This criticism is stone cold true. Just look at the amount of free corporate media coverage given to the Annointed candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton) in comparison to the media's Untouchables (Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel... and that's not even including smaller party candidates). They choose who's message 'deserves' to be heard and then when the rest complain, the corporate media holds its hands up and sniffs, "The public just isn't interested in them."

If you're an ordinary TV watcher and you see tons of reporting and yapping head analysis on the Annointed Ones and next to nothing (except maybe the occasional hack job on 'the quirky campaign of...' and rare yapping head edict that 'So and so can't win') about the Untouchables, then what do you expect? How can a candidate resonate with the public if the public is virtually never exposed to that candidate's message?

The recent visit of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to Glens Falls exposed this hypersensitivity yet again.

A gentleman named John Thomas of Hartford, NY wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the quantity and quality of coverage given by The Post-Star to Nader's visit. Mr. Thomas felt that both were inadequate.

He complained that the visit of TV personality Rachel Ray got more coverage than the visit of a presidential candidate and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century. This is factually correct. Ray got more coverage.

Now, it's no secret that I'm a Nader supporter, although I don't know John Thomas. But what bothered me most was how The Post-Star could not resist adding a snotty little Editor's Note to Thomas' letter.

The Editor's Note sniffed that Nader's visit got 'ample play' in the paper. That 'ample play' was a brief preview story and a small recap at the bottom of the local section.

Translation: Naderites should get on their hands and knees and genuflect to the brick red building that they deigned to give Nader any coverage at all.

Well, that's the paper's opinion.

Thomas' letter expressed a different opinion.

Isn't this the very purpose of the letters to the editor and editorial sections?

The letters express the opinions of readers. The editorial expresses the opinions of the newspaper.

Editor's Notes to letters to the edtior are very uncommon in this paper. Usually, the daily only includes them if the writer makes a factually false statement or to clarify something in the letter that may have been murky. Sometimes, it's used to note that the letter writer has some personal connection with the issue discussed.

The general rule of the paper seems to be to let the letter writers have their 15 minutes, so to speak.

None of these applied to Thomas' letter. He didn't say the paper offered no coverage. He said Nader should've gotten more than Rachel Ray.

Yet the paper felt the need to rebuke Thomas for expressing (and very mildly at that) his not demonstrably false personal opinion... which is the whole purpose of the letters to the editor section.

Makes you wonder why the paper is so hyperdefensive.