Raise the Hammer

Shawn's comments here, and the astute--I think-- comments in #86407,"yes Ryan, & Burak column (anonymous)", are not mutually exclusive. Au contraire. Since what Shawn writes at the start of his comment about the Spec's purpose is accurate, or even true, therefore citizen readers can/should/must demand better. The Spec's print-any-comment letters, whether their 'facts' are demonstrable or not, has led in the Spec to ad hominem attacks and letters that impute motives to writers separate from arguments over the issue at hand. A House of Commons speaker (in the 1990s, I believe) told MPs not to do it. (Shawn or Shea is writing or saying this or that because EVERYONE knows that he probably is part of SOME group that THINKS this or that awful thing. Well, I may be, but it's separate from the argument at hand.)
A good/better newspaper would make it incumbent on a letter writer to give at least an example from that newspaper's articles or letters, which the new writer is responding to. When a reader says in annoyance to the letter on the page, "For example??", the example should BE there for the reader to go to. Even the Spec gives previous "Re" references in its "regular" curated letters. It's not good enough; not useful; not appropriate, to run "curated" letters that are no better than quick after-articles posted comments: Everybody knows (let's say) that the meteor or demon-comet that exploded over Russia this week is god's warning to evil-born humans. Everybody "knows" but with no evidence IN THE LETTER that this is "true"--and no copyright apology to Spec here (from so-called Letter, Thurs., Feb.14)--"Why does it seem that with every major development issue, the same few people get involved? This was the case with the board of education decision, the stadium debacle and, rewinding a few years, the Red Hill construction delay. The same activists seem to move from issue to issue, rallying troops along the way, rarely compromising on their position and when the debate is over, they move on to the next big thing. ..."
A letter should draw on what's actually been in the Spec or elsewhere to support that sort of thing. Go ahead. Either the writer can, or cannot. //