Reader condemns editorial’s ‘baseless speculation’

To the Editor:

Last Friday evening I settled onto our living room couch planning to enjoy the latest edition of The Northwoods River News (I’m easily entertained, ok?).

Straightaway the special section “Heroes on the Homefront” spoke to me. Here was a 24-page homage to the generous and committed people who give so much of themselves to benefit our communities, often with little or no recognition. What a wonderful effort by the paper, to recognize these public servants, I marveled. I even mused that I’ve perhaps been too disparaging of Messieurs Walker and Moore (I don’t know either gentleman, but the image of the two bumbling detectives in the French cartoon series Tintin sometimes just pops into my head when I think of them). Perhaps I’d underestimated their underlying benevolent natures.

Oh that I would have slipped into dreamland at that point. A blissful nap awaited me. But, no, I continued down the rabbit hole, which in this case consisted of that edition’s “Our View” section, wherein said messieurs would argue, I’m sure, that they were simply suggesting that the patriotic action for us all in the coming days is to get out to vote, even if it means casting your ballot by mail which before recent days had been considered a no-no by many on the right.

But, predictably, they couldn’t stop there. They couldn’t forego suggesting in that same section that there are some public servants who are likely despicable, or at least unworthy of their magnanimous trust and likely won’t get their picture in future “Heroes on the Homefront” sections. They mused, when talking about postal workers (maybe your neighbor or your friend that you’ve known for 20, 30, 40 years as a decent person, or maybe you or your spouse), “Do you really trust they will deliver ballots from conservative neighborhoods in a timely fashion, if at all?.” They offered that rhetorical question with no facts or evidence to support it and seemingly no intent other than to fan the flames of political turmoil that these kinds of conspiratorial suggestions beget.

There’s that pitiful behavior, but also the irony that in this same issue they utilized over a full page (including front page headlines) of the newspaper to report on the new “defamation” charges that one of their arch-villains, Kirk Bangstad, faces.

So…, it’s a crime for Monsieur Bangstad (I don’t see him connected to Tintin, just trying to be consistent with the titles and I like how monsieur sounds) to defame some principals of this publication, but it’s acceptable “free speech” for this publication to defame the postal service/workers (through baseless speculation about them being dishonest)? Really? I’m honestly befuddled by that suggestion.

And I’m befuddled as to how one should characterize that type of editorializing. Ill-advised, simple minded, predictable, delusional, conspiratorial, pathetic? All of the above? For the sake of simplicity I’ll just settle on a single word for now. Depressing.

Needless to say, I arose from our living room couch without my anticipated respite. Fortunately for me, my loving spouse was there to counsel me as she is oft to do, “Please put that silly newspaper down and come help me finish the dishes.”  

Michael Henry

Rhinelander