Publishing inflammatory remarks adds to political tension.
In today's heated political and social climate, there's plenty of shame to share. Shame on Berks Republican Women President Carla D'Addesi for casting inflammatory, unsubstantiated aspersions at a perceived political foe, and shame on the Reading Eagle for permitting editorial comment to appear ostensibly as news ("Berks Republican Women host congressional hopefuls," Reading Eagle, Sept. 8).
D'Addesi accused the activist group Indivisible Berks of being "hostile to America and to family values." By association, she also accused them of "using hateful language and violent messaging." I beg to differ. Indivisible Berks members visited my home. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant; I fully support their right to express themselves. I found the group's representatives to be polite, sincere, well-informed and responsible citizens with a thoughtful message. Unless and until D'Addesi provides appropriate citations for her criticism of their behavior, her comments cannot be taken seriously.
The Eagle's coverage of the event was not balanced journalism. I realize the story merely quoted a local activist, but there are those among us who are not inclined toward critical thinking and who blindly ascribe undue credibility to anything in print. It would have been prudent and more responsible to have qualified the source, required examples to support the condemnation and provided an opportunity for the offended party to respond.
More rigorous editorial oversight, locally and nationally, could help ease the extreme tension that threatens us all.