Replies

I subscribed to the Star last summer only to cancel my subscription within two weeks. It was too revolting--and my sister was dying so I just wasn't in the mood. Before that I read them online when I didn't pick up a copy at the newstand.

I've been getting a call from their subscription department about every two weeks. They openly admit that everyone thinks they're too liberal. One guy even stopped by my house and said "We're working on that." I told him if it changes, I'll subscribe, but I won't hold my breath. He also said "They endorsed Taff; did you see that?" I pointed out to him that it was only for the primary (something he apparently didn't realize) so they HAD to endorse a Republican, and Taff was the more liberal choice. This was before they endorsed Moore for the general election.

On a funny note, they also keep reducing the price. I think it started at $18 a month, went to $13 a month, then to $10--a special for my area. I had a dream they called me and reduced the price to $3 a month (or maybe it really happened, lol, I don't remember).

I do try to not be impossible to please. I realize the standard for opinion pages is different than for news pages. But when all their opinions are formed on one-sided news from one-sided views I'm not going to stand by and take it without comment. All I want is some real EFFORT at balance. They do not have to be perfect.

I am all for a newspaper having the opportunity to present its opinion, as long as it is not in a new story. But, I do think that the opinion page should showcase various views. I also think for a newspaper to come out with great editorials and endorsements....if they care about doing the best job possible...they should attempt to have a fairly balanced staff politically. It doesn't have to be perfect, but having almost all Repubs or Dems does not allow a newspaper to combine enough differing ideas into a central thesis in an editorial. Instead, one opinion is offered and the public gets shortchanged.