THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 2, 1994 TAG: 9406300022
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 54 lines
I am a newspaper junkie - I generally read The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star (I subscribe), The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal each day. Until recently, I had no misgivings about mentioning The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star in the same sentence as these excellent publications. Not that I ever held The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star in the same category, but for a local paper in a market this size, I considered it uncommonly good.
As one who travels frequently, I've had occasion to compare it to such nationally known papers as the Atlanta Constitution, the San Francisco Examiner and the Chicago Sun-Times, as well as countless smaller papers. I found that the former VP/LS held its own or bettered the big papers and was clearly superior to most smaller publications. But then the changes came.
First, the amount of news was reduced to (apparently) accommodate more white space and advertisements. So now I pay the same price for less news.
Next, the op-ed page was dumbed-down to McPaper (USA Today) levels. As a political centrist, I don't care whether there is a liberal or conservative slant to the page; I can read critically and recognize a writer's bias regardless of which side it comes from. What I find disturbing is the poor quality of writing that came with the new additions. Snow (``I hosted the Rush Limbaugh Show'' and ``I Don't Like Soccer'' - is this really worthy of the op-ed page?) and Feder (who aspires to be the next Cal Thomas in both opinions and inability to convincingly convey them) come to mind.
Each day I turn to the op-ed page hoping I will be able to read someone worthwhile, such as George Will, Richard Cohen, Pat Buchanan, Clarence Page, William Safire, Charles Krauthammer or Meg Greenfield (note that quality comes from both sides of the political spectrum). While some of these still appear, it is more and more among the thoughtless, truism-slinging panderers to small minds.
If it was your intention to push the paper down to the pitiful level of the Daily Press or USA Today, I offer you my congratulations. I imagine this will increase your circulation among a public that is more interested in Paula Jones or O.J. Simpson than in North Korea or health care. Give 'em what they want, right? Good-bye integrity.
Now I find myself with an unpleasant choice. Do I continue to subscribe to a consistently disappointing paper or go without the local news that no other paper provides? Perhaps I'll just pick up the VP/LS when there's a local election or other local information I need. Why else should I continue to read it?
JOHN BEAUCHAMP
Chesapeake, June 28, 1994 by CNB