Page Two

"Postmarks" is among our most popular features with roughly half of you regular readers, according to one survey. An easy read, the section offers short takes by mostly changing contributors voicing a diverse range of opinions, many not regularly found here. As soon as they are received, letters are now being posted online.

Lee Nichols is the "Postmarks" editor; he verifies signatures and keeps a sharp eye out for libel and letters that have been submitted to more than one publication. Each issue, I'm given a printout of all the letters; I put them in order and pick the headlines. We publish as many as we can possibly fit in the available space. In addition to what we cut due to space limitations, we routinely eliminate letters sent to multiple publications; organizational form letters; anything libelous, unsigned, or with obvious pseudonyms; as well as unusually hateful missives from regulars. Used to be we published about 90% of those remaining; these days we average around 60%, even with much more space devoted to them. Posting them online as soon as they're received is one way of dealing with this increased traffic. Over the next many months, we'll be concentrating on making the Chronicle even more interactive online; one way we plan to do this is to introduce some kind of threaded discussions in certain sections.

Personally, I'm in a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, we'd love to hear more from our readers and are working on any number of ways to encourage this. On the other, I'm growing weary of some of the propagandizing.

In overseeing "Postmarks," I've always been very vigilant about protecting the space for the reader/letter-writer. "We get to have our say in the paper; 'Postmarks' is their space," has always been the mantra. Editorial responses are limited to corrections of fact, with the staff sometimes feeling I'm overzealous in making the distinction. Snide, sarcastic, or chiding headlines are largely forbidden.

Of course, I don't always follow my own rules. Several issues back, a letter asked Mike Clark-Madison to stick to the facts rather than offer his opinion in a column on the smoking ordinance. Several headlines were suggested, but I went with my own, something along the lines of "Have You Read Our Paper?" The writer sent a not-for-publication response noting the headline was petty and insulting. They were right: My headline was an uncalled-for cheap shot. The Chronicle is very clear in its biases, trying for comprehensive, fair reporting so you'll get the story but never pretending to be objective (a one-word oxymoron). Advocacy is this paper's core mission -- backed by, we hope, expert reporting. So I lost it when I shouldn't have and admit to regretting the headline. But the times are putting me through some changes.

Many letter-writers have to work themselves up in order to write. Consequently, often an error in a review (who played which instrument), a typo, a misspelling, or an editing mistake is reacted to as proof positive of the staff's moral corruption, the result of the writer's hereditary stupidity, or clear evidence of the decline of Western civilization. Letters cataloging two or three relatively minor errors (in some cases, simply a different grammatical opinion) read as indictments of corrupt totalitarian regimes. Still, these are fun to read, even, or especially, when overly outraged, hostile, or silly, so they are always welcome.

But politics, that's different. In these times, putting a neutral or descriptive headline on some bit of pro-redistricting spin or administration misinformation offered as passionate opinion seems too much like an endorsement, even in the letters section. The Bush apologists, changing arguments with Orwellian facility, are especially troubling. Long-established policies may need to change.

Make no mistake -- I was a Clinton apologist, arguing that his fidelity and/or promiscuity (even with interns) were neither the nation's nor my concern. The campaign against him was despicable, especially the special prosecutor's inquisition. Essentially ignoring the questionable business deal it was investigating, Ken Starr's report was pornographic not because of its sexual explicitness, but as a result of its intent and predetermined conclusions. Oh, right -- the impeachment was about perjury, not sex; and redistricting is about representation, not power.

As an apologist, however, my focus was limited to the ferocious personal attacks, not the Clinton administration's agenda. As with so many people I know who are critical of Bush, politically I often found myself in disagreement with the Clinton administration's concerns. The Clinton years, at worst, however, were disappointing, while the current administration has me feeling deeply disturbed, alienated, and ashamed.

A common right-wing Republican attack on critics is to accuse them of being so driven by their personal hatred of Bush that they attack his policies without regard to their worth. The case is, of course, just the opposite. Ironically, these fanatical apologists for all things Bush (even when it means abandoning long-cherished Republican tenets) so psychopathically hated Clinton personally, in attacking him they rarely felt the need to cite any kind of specifics regarding legislation or policy.

Any garbage this administration sells on foreign, economic, and national policy the loyalists not only buy but also regurgitate. On the local level, the lock-step, partisan parroting is just as unrelenting. Consider the redistricting battle, where Democrats are damned for placing party before state, as though the whole effort weren't base partisan politics. Ignoring Perry's pathetic lack of leadership, Republican legislators' allegiance is greater to the state of DeLay than to the state of Texas.

Last issue we printed a letter attacking Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, which not only diminutively referred to him by his first name, but also had the nerve to chide, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." In the almost-Neanderthal mid-Sixties Texas, Barrientos made his bones as a liberal Hispanic legislator in a conservative, white-Democrat-dominated legislature. Barrientos knows more about heat then any of these ridiculous, armchair political partisans. You know the kind: Sitting at home, they self-righteously support our troops by sending them to die in unnecessary foreign conflicts while turning their back as the administration cuts military and veterans benefits.

So what to do? Offer disparaging headlines? Allow our writers to respond on any point? Change the Chronicle letters policy? We really do want to hear from these people, allowing space for any and all who disagree with us (a letter negative toward the Chronicle or our positions is more likely to be published than one that's positive), but by being neutral are we offering an endorsement, even if tacit? No decision has been made, though I am authoring nastier headlines online and am pretty sure that soon we'll be allowing writers to respond, at least there, as well. Your thoughts?