Letters

The point is truth and fairness

Posted 11/17/15

To the Editor:

Christopher Curran’s column, “View on the News” has a plethora of pejorative comments in his critique of one candidate for the presidency of our great nation, …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
Letters

The point is truth and fairness

Posted

To the Editor:

Christopher Curran’s column, “View on the News” has a plethora of pejorative comments in his critique of one candidate for the presidency of our great nation, namely Dr. Benjamin Carson. The negatives include: not been truthful, absence of voracity, not more earnest, fabricate, prevarication, fictional, canard, erroneously, confounding, outright lying, chosen economy with the truth, surrealistic perception, greater respect for the truth. Wow! And that is just the list of the derisive word descriptive of Dr. Carson by Mr. Curran. 

With words such as these salted throughout the column, one can have no doubt about the negative tone and narrative conveyed by the writer. By contrast one must wonder whether Mr. Curran would ever write about blatant, unrepentant liars such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who in their respective public service offices lied to the American people. Lies, so egregious that they even now still confound our country.

Most knowledgeable people know full well the decided liberal/progressive slant of the mainstream media.  The media seems to believe that it is in their interest to choose sides, contrary to what the public expects from the forth estate. To our great loss, that is what appears to have occurred to one of our greatest liberties.  Media honchos choose the degree of scrutiny they apply to people and events and it seems they have decided in this case to atom bomb conservative candidates for office. This attitude and motivation does not include Mr. Curran, I am certain, but what seems the case is that he wrote much too perfunctory and premature on Dr. Carson.

The book is not closed on Dr. Carson’s explanations of distant years of his past and his phrasing of events. As this writer understands, for example and contradictory to Mr. Curran’s rendition, the military academy refers to offers to their institution as “scholarships” (even though candidates are appointed). Only someone privy to the conversation between Dr. Carson and General Westmoreland could testify whether the general’s offer was absolutely not called a scholarship and whether the listener interpreted the offer to be that word. 

One would hope the reader can comprehend the foolishness of some media people who are trying to win a Pulitzer Prize and to heck with the truth. The issue is not whether the reader is a fan of Dr. Carson, the point is truth and fairness and for some time now the people of this state and this nation are getting neither.

(As a matter of no consequence, I may or may not be voting for Dr. Carson, but I certainly will not vote for Hillary.)

Sam Parente

Cranston

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Straightnnarrow

    Excellent letter. When we buy a box of Wheaties, the manufacturer is required to list the ingredients. It should required of columnists like Mr Curran to list his ingredients; i.e. Democratic apologist, windbag, deceiver and definitely hazardous to health of reader if swallowed whole.

    Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Report this