Media bias: Is it really liberal?
Regarding: "A call to the right" (July 25): I am disappointed in the Monitor for your story on the conservatives in the media. The entire tone of the article implied that somehow conservatives are in the minority in the media, a blatant falsehood. These days it is virtually impossible to find any liberal or progressive voices in either print media or broadcast media.
All their protestations to the contrary, folks like Ann Coulter who think it's a good idea for Muslim countries to be invaded and their citizens turned into Christians and Rush Limbaugh, whose diatribes are hardly about "truth," are not journalists to begin with, but commentators with agendas. Tucker Carlson may be at least moderately civil in his comments but, again, is an ideologue with an agenda.
The media in general seem no longer interested in reporting but rather in cheerleading. "Fair and balanced" is at best subjective and at worst simply a phrase meant to deflect criticism.
I'm writing to applaud your thoughtful and nuanced article on conservatives growing their own ranks in the media. I was grateful to see that you picked up on the importance many conservative journalists genuinely wish to place on broadening the range of viewpoints expressed.
On the other hand, I found your selection of photo illustrations, depicting Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, a peculiar contrast to the finer points made in the article. High-profile conservative "media stars" do appear to revel in their self-anointed roles as anti-liberal ballasts in a sea of liberal journalists. It is my sense that most journalists who happen to hold conservative beliefs are less interested in singing to the choir (like Limbaugh) or winning "Crossfire-style" debates than they are in expanding the great conversations about governance that make liberties like freedom of speech so precious a value I hope conservatives and liberals can proudly share.
Santa Monica, Calif.
Regarding: "Church of England's controversial new leader" (July 24): Your article on the "secret" selection of Dr. Rowan Williams as the new Archbishop of Canterbury neglected to mention that he will also be the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion that is, the Church of England at home and overseas (in the Commonwealth and former colonies) and the church's descendents in the US, the Episcopal Church. In that capacity, Dr. Williams will surely have more influence than your article suggested.
While hometown church attendance is declining in England, it is certainly growing overseas. At the once-in-a-decade Lambeth Conference, conservative third-world bishops are beginning to outnumber those from industrialized nations. Therefore, appointing a liberal Archbishop will have a moderating, checks-and-balances effect on issues like women's rights and homosexuality.
Ms. Seats's remarks about insurance for houses is right on the money (Letters, July 23). About 15 years ago, builders started building airtight houses. Airtight also meant waterproof, which meant that neither air nor water could get in or out.
If there was any moisture seepage during the construction process, it was trapped during the application of the air- and water-tight finishing, causing mold. This has had an enormously adverse impact on homeowner insurance.
Mercer Island, Wash.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. We can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to email@example.com.