Point/Counterpoint, Oklahoman Style

As I noted at the outset, the Oklahoman rarely publishes letters expressing left-leaning or progressive sentiments. When they do, however, they almost always follow it up with a letter that directly references and attacks the author's left-leaning points (but never the author, of course). The end result, then, is a sort of Point/Counterpoint where the right-wing opinion always gets the final say.

A great example comes from just a few weeks ago, when Colleen Walker of Edmond wrote a leader headlined "Oklahoma should adopt path of progressiveness," that makes a valid point regarding the 2012 elections:

Many Oklahomans voted for a party that doesn't have their best interests at heart. A large number of Oklahomans have contributed time, money and lots of effort to a group of special, powerful interests that don't provide a platform beneficial to most Oklahomans. Too many Oklahomans have been manipulated to be pawns in forces that aren't friendly to their values. The initiatives in health care reform, financial institution reform, tax revisions and economy improvement that have been under way during the last four years will prove to benefit Oklahomans in the long run.

And indeed, it is easy to argue that on issues of the economy and environment, she is right.

This is the Oklahoman, however, so they won't just leave it at that. Instead, a few days later we see a letter from Stephen Butler of Yukon. The headline, "Oklahoma voted against Marxist principles," is classic in that it allows the paper to push a crazy right-wing idea ("We're all headed for socialism!!") without having to take ownership if it.

Mr. Butler rants that "Walker can't see the destruction these progressive principles have caused in Europe, where they've had the liberal utopia for years — countries buried in debt, high unemployment and a tyrannical government that controls your every move," when the actual data show that Europe's debt and high unemployment are a direct result of the austerity measures he is in favor of! (Or, to be fair, that he was told by right-wing media outlets that he should be in favor of.)

He goes on to say, "I'm self-employed. I've built my business for 18 years. Yes, I did build that! This is why Oklahomans voted against Marxist principles." But while Mr. Butler no doubt did build his business, it is certain that having roads, police, educated employees, clean air, safe food, and so on, helped him along the way. So yes, the President's point that business success happens in part because there is a functioning government to provide services and protections is entirely true. Yet Mr Butler, egged on by the various right-wing media outlets he surrounds himself with, believes in a sheer fantasy where "rugged individualism" is all it takes to succeed in the modern world.

In a parting shot, he concludes "[a]s for Obamacare, I hope Walker never needs a knee replacement or a pacemaker. She might be told to just take a pill." It's hard to imagine a more distorted understanding of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Yet, his letter is nevertheless published because the editors know it pushes their agenda in a compelling way-- 'Obamacare' will rob you of proper healthcare!-- and without having to be responsible for the fact that such accusations are completely groundless.

But back to the point: Ms. Walker wrote a perfectly unoffensive letter expressing her views and wishes. The Oklahoman publishes several such letters every day. However, when those letters support a right-wing position (and often include statements reflecting a worldview that is counter to reality), they are never followed-up with a direct counter. Conversely, when those letters support a progressive opinion they are always swiftly followed by one (or more) attacking it-- usually with more inflammatory rhetoric, arguments based on faulty data, and so-on.