I've gotten a lot of criticism today for my column in the print edition about what I've been hearing from readers concerning how The Star covered the election.
"just read your monthly(?) defense of the Star's liberal bias," wrote one.
"You are the stupidest person to appear in (The Star), and that's saying a lot," said a caller.
Another caller said I should have been writing similar columns before Election Day instead of waiting until afterwards to sum things up. That's a fair knock.
Several others read the column as a defense of the editorial board's endorsements. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, because I certainly didn't mean to. That's actually one of the last things I'd ever do, because those opinions are the only part of the paper's newsroom content that my purview doesn't extend to in any way. There's no such thing as a "fair" or "accurate" opinion. (However, I can always address concrete facts in any opinion piece, and I've turned many readers' error catches from columns and even editorials into corrections through the years.)
I've also heard some nuanced and unpredictable feedback from readers on the left and the right, such as this caller:
I was surprised and delighted to see you remembered my call to you from some time ago. I'm still a proud "right-wing conservative" and I am glad to see you printed me wanting more and more on Benghazi. There still hasn't been enough for my tastes, but what I want is probably more than you would consider "fair."
Another reader, also touching on a topic from a blog post earlier today, emailed:
(I) marvel at the number of liberal (sensible?) Letters to the Editor I see--considering I'm surrounded by right-wing voters. AND I almost forgot to mention I consider the paper's handling of the news even-handed, as well--though I DID think the "Four More Years" sounded celebratory to me.
I think it's too simplistic to conclude that because I heard a number of conflicting points of view, that means things were fair. However, it is striking to me that opinions have been all over the map, with conservatives' calls for more focus on the Obama administration's responsibility for Benghazi being the only constant (and that one's tangential to election coverage). I welcome other feedback to add to the pile, of course.