Letters for Jan. 20, 2022

Editorializing in headline

Your headline writer is editorializing when they write “Trudeau plays dangerous game demanding U.S. truckers have shots” (Spokane Daily Chronicle, Jan. 14). If this were an opinion piece, fine. On the other side of the coin, public health officials might write: “Trudeau safeguards public health, demands U.S. truckers have shots.” But, since the front page is not the editorial page, the headline should read: “Trudeau demands U.S. Truckers have shots.” No editorializing either way, thank you.

Chris Aumack

Spokane

Spokane Garry’s stolen land

As a result of Eli Francovich’s excellent and revealing article (“Chief Spokane Garry’s stolen land,” Jan. 16), I make the following suggestion.

The land developer should voluntarily grant or the city/county require through the development approval process, the establishment of a small portion of the proposed 230-unit housing project in recognition of Chief Garry. I suggest this for the purpose of recognizing Chief Garry’s contributions to the early Spokane community and his influence to bring about peaceful cooperation between the local Native Americans and the white newcomers, and, further, to recognize the injustice perpetrated against him and his family by the then Spokane elite establishment. An alternative would be to grant the local Native America tribes a period of time to purchase a small site from the developer, in cooperation with the developer and the city/county.

Any of the above possibilities follow the precedent established with the recent acquisition by Native Americans of the acreage along the shores of Latah-Hangman Creek in southwest Spokane. In fact, a wise developer might make this a part of the proposed development to the city/county.

Our Spokane history and heritage is linked to this man and his nearly lifetime efforts to make things work between the Native Americans and the arriving white population. This is an opportunity too great to let slip away.

Thomas Mosher

Spokane

Drop Madsen or Cargill

Sue Lani Madsen on Jan. 6 and Chris Cargill of the Washington Policy Center on Jan. 7, wrote columns supporting right wing views. The WPC is described as a right wing think tank. Cargill’s most recent editorial, in addition to many others, support his right wing political stance. He wrote how residents from Washington are fleeing in hordes. That’s what U-Haul implies, according to Cargill. He makes a number of other dubious statements. The state Office of Financial Management shows 61,600 people moving into Washington in 2021. This during the pandemic when movement around the country was impacted. Typical right wing rhetoric about how bad it is to live in Washington, much based on flimsy facts or no facts.

Madsen writes a weekly column based on her conservative right wing views. Many times her columns have contained factual errors. Madsen’s Jan. 6 column is outrageous. She writes about the terminology for the Jan. 6 “insurrection” on the Capitol. This is what she focuses on after the breach and attack on the Unites States Capitol? How about $1.5 million in damage to the Capitol? Her column shamelessly offers excuses and minimizes what happened. Granted both of these writers are offering their “opinion” but they should have enough professional integrity to stick to truths and facts.

The S-R should drop one of these columns in interest of political balance and use the space for more letters from the public. A Cowles family member sits on the WPC board. For appearance sake how about eliminating WPC’s column?

Chris Powell

Spokane

Column sometimes leans left

When Rob Curley proposed the “We the People” column for The Spokesman-Review, I was hopeful that such a series would disseminate founding philosophy and accurate history that would educate willing readers of all political persuasions, omitting subtle or overt opinion and advocacy. There have been such neutral compositions, which were informative and interesting.

Just as often, however, there’ve been contributions to the column from people that have obvious allegiances to political and social agendas, such as the composition that answered the question, “Martin Luther King Jr. is famous for many things. Name one” (King’s fight for equality for all changed the way America protests,” Jan. 16). It’s obvious that the writer of the answer, Amber D. Dodd, has particular political positions. It’s most likely that she is an activist since she is the Carl Maxey Racial and Social Inequity reporter funded by activist groups.

Another politically biased, and agenda driven organization that has provided content for the “We the People” column is the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service. The WSU students selected by this institute to compose for this column also showed their sociopolitical biases.

I expected that journalistic ethics would have prevented The Spokesman-Review from inviting writers from activist organizations to contribute to what I assumed (perhaps naively) was to be a purely educational column. Alternatively, those ethics would provide either a purging, or a balancing, of particular sociopolitical advocacies.

If The S-R’s purpose is to foster thoughtful public discussion, at least provide opposing ideologies to consider. Solicit the Washington State Institute for Public Policy for contributors.

Duncan Bean

Spokane Valley