In Stephen Chapman’s Dec. 11 Op-Ed column, he commented on the Latrell Sprewell incident with insight and humor. But there at the end of the column was the apparently obligatory dig at President Clinton.
I appreciate that your Editorial and Op-Ed Page offerings are reasonably well balanced, with columnists representing a range of opinion. I must say, however, that I find it easy to discount the opinions of those whose point of view is predictable to the point of tedium. It would be helpful to have more columnists who are able to see two sides of an issue, but I am willing to tolerate lack of balance if the treatment is thoughtful and fair.
President Clinton has given all of us reason to criticize his administration. Such criticism can be offered in a reasonable way, but it is much more persuasive if it does not appear to be an automatic negative response to everything the man does. Columnists such as Chapman undermine their own credibility when they take such pointless swipes at any one person or institution.
I hope that you will take my reaction to this comment in the Chapman column seriously. You do want us to care about what the man has to say, don’t you?
