Addressing Local Paper's Tone Deafness

So much to say, so little time to say it. That's how it is these days.

I've composed in my head and in the little notebook I carry around posts about a number of issues; gun violence, repression of women and more. I did, however, take time to send a letter to the local newspaper here -- I can get away with saying THE local paper, since there is only one. This time, unlike several previous letters, this one was published. It was in response to what to my mind was a particularly narrow and ostensibly partisan editorial on President Obama's Inaugural speech.

Here's my letter (w/the newspaper's heading):

Editorial, not Obama, was what fell short

By what measure did the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board conclude that the "President's speech fell short of what the nation needed" or that "he lacked an overarching idea" (Our View, Jan. 22)?

Was President Barack Obama's remarks not exclusive enough for the Editorial Board? Was it not elitist enough? Is a theme that embraces we, the people, equality for all and the journey is not finished not enough of an overarching idea?

Perhaps the Journal Sentinel editorial brain trust, rather than tuning in on the content of Obama's speech, was still tasting the sour grapes of the president's electoral victory.

While much of the country and, indeed, the world, praised Obama for the soaring tone and visionary direction of his speech, the Editorial Board trivialized it with a backhanded comparison to another president's hair.

No, the president's speech did not fall short of what the nation needed, but the Journal Sentinel editorial did fall short of what the community needed.

Jerrianne Hayslett 
South Milwaukee

The link is http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters28-vv8h5r8-188603691.html

The link to the editorial is http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/presidents-speech-fell-short-of-what-the-nation-needed-ih8fgd5-187814971.html