Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor for Sunday, March 17, 2019

FOX News Channel anchor Chris Wallace, substituting for Bret Baier, concludes his interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand on “Special Report,” in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 25.
FOX News Channel anchor Chris Wallace, substituting for Bret Baier, concludes his interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand on “Special Report,” in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 25. AP

Attack on Fox News is an attack on freedom

A few weeks ago, I expressed my concern about the DOJ and the FBI seeking to force President Trump from office by using the 25th Amendment as leverage. This “Eight Days in May” scenario is greatly troubling, especially since the details continue to be restricted from public view.

And now comes another significant threat to one of the fundamental freedoms that makes this country what it is: freedom of the press. The New Yorker magazine recently published a lengthy article contending that Fox News should not be allowed to participate in public debate because it is a less than honest provider of political news. The indictment was based on the support demonstrated for President Trump by the opinion commentators. The article, it seems, was silent as to the credentials of those who provide standard reporting. The article further discounted the hard questioning given to President Trump during the debate Fox hosted because anonymous sources reported that the questions were provided to him ahead of time.

And so as a result, the Democratic Party has announced that Fox News cannot host any of its debates.

What we have here is a call by the left for censorship. Strip down the article and you are left with the demand: do away with Fox News (and anyone else we disagree with) because they present opinions that are contrary to ours.

There was a time when CNN was known as the Clinton News Network. People objected, but no one called for CNN to shut its doors. For eight years, President Obama was provided very favorable coverage by 90 percent of the press. Again, those on the right silently endured but did not call for the Times and Post to stop the presses.

Why is it then that the left cannot tolerate an opposition? Socialism already?

Michael Fox,

Midland

Ruling create police shooting gallery

It’s eerie. Former North Charleston, S.C., police officer Michael Slager feared for his life, as he shot and killed a fleeing Walter Scott. NYPD officers feared serial cigarette peddler Eric Garner; they used an illegal chokehold to kill him. Cleveland, Ohio, police officers felt so threatened by 12-year old Tamir Rice, three seconds after they arrived on scene, they shot and killed Tamir .

Therefore, when Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert ruled the two Sacramento police officers who fired 20 shots and killed Stephon Clark, feared for their lives, and acted lawfully. Which compelled Stevante Clark, the dead man’s brother, to implore California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to prosecute the officers. Three days late,r Clark’s hopes were blighted and banished. Becerra’s 11-month independent investigation is distilled into : the officers feared for their lives.

It’s apparent that Graham v. O’Connor, the 1989 Supreme Court case, has spawned atrocities. It lavishes officers with latitude, that has created a shooting gallery. It’s power is profound. Police magazine’s article “Understanding Graham v. O’Connor” stated: “A quarter-century ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case that determines the legality of every use-of-force incident.”

States must implement use-of-force protocols that ensure police actually protect and serve.

Marc D. Greenwood,

Camp Hill, Ala.

  Comments