Chopping at commentary
Alan Braunholtz’s commentary on Dec. 7 is a prime example of very poor writing, not even considered journalism, more like a tabloid.
First he states that losing wild things, which I assume is the trees he is talking about, that once they are gone, they are gone, that is, they are gone forever. Hum? Trees are renewable. Someone please tell Alan trees grow from little seeds. Maybe Alan needs a biology course. I can plant one and watch it grow. They reforest logged areas all over the states, and very successfully, too. I have seen this first hand throughout the state of Oregon. Maybe Alan needs to broaden his little world.
Next he misuses the case of old-growth redwood trees as a case to not do any harvesting of any forest. Actually, he intentionally is misleading readers, propaganda is a correct the term, attempting to sway them to his views, all the while never providing any facts.
So what do you think you paper is written on? What do you think the house you live in is built of? Do you think that all logging is for the benefit of the logging company, or is there a demand side you need to be concerned with?
You as a newspaper owe the public a responsibility to represent articles in a professional journalistic manner, research, facts, present both sides of the issue, explore the whole issue. Be a journalist.
Is being a ski instructor and river rafter the qualifications for being able to write for this paper? Maybe you should have a garbage man write some articles on trees. He sees all the newspapers that wind up in the landfill.
Maybe Alan should do some research on recycling, alternate forms of materials to replace the trees he so wishes to save, and why they are not more prevalent in our society, instead us just complaining. Tabloid crap!
Just ask your self this question, “If you charged for the paper, would anybody buy it?”