Friday, February 21, 2003
In the Alligator
I had a letter printed in the Alligator today. The Alligator is the Independent newspaper of UF, and is decidedly pro-liberal, as one would expect of a college newspaper. Yesterday there was a letter to the editor talking about how the upcoming war was based on a "lust of oil". I responded:
In response to Marilyn Galan's Tuesday letter, "Racist cartoon inappropriate,", it is not the war which shows a "lust for oil", but rather France's stubborn stance to keep Saddam Hussein in power.
French oil companies currently have $60 billion in contracts with the Hussein regime to explore and drill fro oil in Iraq, contracts that would probably be broken in the event that the regime was overthrown. In order to keep the multi-billion dollar contracts, France is willing to give Hussein a longer leash and stay in power. That is a "lust for oil."
Although I'm thrilled to see that my letter made it to print, a second letter I sent did not, and in many ways I feel it was the more important letter. The editorial in the Alligator yesterday asserted that America faces no danger as no one will ever use a weapon of mass destruction on us for fear of reprisals. Furthermore, terrorism is inevitable, our current build-up in the Middle East serves nothing but to disrupt sweetheart's Valentine's Day, and Harry Truman alone was responsible for the end of World War II (not the combined efforts of millions of American citizens and soldiers, just Truman). I see that today my challenge to a two paragraph letter was printed, but that no criticisms of the half-page editorial were offered. Is this indicative of bias (or just journalistic judgment that you shouldn't print two letters from the same source on one page)?
------------------------------------------------