I enjoyed traveling the written road provided by Andrew Young (“Forum: Balentine provides a vital service to Forecaster readers,” July 30), until he came to a fork.
To the left, Young stated: “… I find (Balentine’s) commentaries so consistently at odds with reality and facts that I sometimes wonder if (he) actually believes any of what he writes.” To the right, Young opines: “However, what … (Balentine’s) critics failed to do … was to point out his courage” and “Balentine is doing Forecaster readers a vital service by expressing his opinions.”
A vital service without facts – is this really useful?
Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist (simply) because they are ignored.” Facts do matter, Mr. Young, requiring courage to express them, especially in a hostile environment.
Notwithstanding Young’s judgment, Balentine acts in a cowardly manner. Why? His misguided “opinions” are mostly constructed on propaganda, not facts. Case in point: Balentine complains “ … Olympic venues are going completely fan-less and … (without) … in-person spectators” (“My Olympic frustrations abound,” July 30).
Does Young believe Balentine’s absence of public health expertise is a valuable contribution to our pandemic discussion? Given the extremely high number of COVID-19 infections, Japanese government officials possessed the courage to safeguard the health and safety of its citizens and guests by only allowing the games to proceed without in-person spectators. If Balentine had the courage, his column could have provided readers a “vital learning service,” by placing the spread of COVID-19 into a proper context, thus supporting Japan’s decision to eliminate in-person spectators.
So, Mr. Young, did Balentine offer us this “vital learning service”? No. Mr. Balentine and other right-wing propagandists have monetized the spread of misinformation. If The Forecaster wants to offer a vital service, demand truth from its contributors. That would be courageous.
John M. Mishler
Harpswell
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less