The Pikes Peak Bulletin recently received an email from a reader unhappy with our decision to publish columnist John Hazlehurst’s “Trump, Macbeth and other villains” in our April 25 edition.
“Is this really the kind of paper you want to be?” he asked. “I get it is an opinion piece and ‘doesn’t reflect the views of the paper.’ But the general tone of the writing in the paper slants this way in many areas. Why alienate so many?”
In another email, the reader cited Warren Epstein as another example of opinion writing printed in the Bulletin that potentially alienates rather than persuades. The reader didn’t call out any news articles, only opinion pieces.
The reader also included an analysis of the Hazlehurst column generated by AI, which included insights such as “The heavy reliance on ad hominem, opinion-baiting, and appeal to emotion deviates significantly from effective strategies like tactical empathy, robust logos, reframing, or calibrated questions.”
And a line I found particularly compelling: “These manipulative tactics polarize rather than persuade, failing to engage opponents constructively or build trust.”
I don’t think Hazlehurst was being manipulative, but just expressing his thoughts and beliefs. But the insight that such writing might contribute to polarization rather than trust-building is a fair point.
I’ve been thinking a lot about our opinion piece policy lately, ever since writing my own opinion piece “On Steve Bannon, JW Roth, free speech and responsibility” a few weeks ago. In it, I brought up the difficulty that sometimes arises in deciding what to print and what to decline or ask to be reworded, especially in opinion pieces. There are some clear boundaries; for example, we’re not going to intentionally print anything that is blatantly not factual. And as I wrote then, we’re certainly not going to platform someone who has repeatedly and unapologetically advocated for violence.
But sometimes it’s not so clear-cut. The Hazlehurst opinion piece is a great example, and the reader’s AI analysis raises a lot of good questions.
What are we trying to achieve in our opinion section?
Is it true that “The heavy use of ad hominem and opinion-baiting distorts facts and alienates opponents, reflecting low agreeableness and high neuroticism” as the AI analysis posits?
Hazlehurst definitely didn’t pull any punches. In “Trump, Macbeth and other villains,” Hazlehurst says “Trump and his co-conspirators” have “demonstrated a level of stupidity, incompetence, incoherence and ignorance unmatched in American political history.” He calls Elon Musk a “reptilian centibillionaire” and a “male chauvinist pig” who breeds with many women but shows little respect. And he references Kristi Noem as a “notorious dog killer,” a shout out to the memoir she published in which she describes killing her hunting dog, Cricket.
So yes, the opinion piece does contain ad hominem attacks and emotional language. But does it “distort facts?” The facts in the article are presented emotionally, but I don’t see a falsehood. And I read the piece in the context of many other facts widely available in national news outlets: DOGE’s rapid dismantling of government agencies and massive data mining; tariffs affecting the world economy and many retirement plans; due process denied immigrants and now apparently citizens, too; and a long list of other actions that have caused widespread dismay and fears that democracy itself is being undermined.
It is true that the column could alienate readers who approve of the administration’s actions and find no compelling argument in Hazlehurst’s column, just a bunch of insults to people they admire. It could also put off readers who disapprove of the Trump administration, but who find the name-calling and emotional tone of the column distasteful.
Yet telling Hazlehurst or anyone else to “adopt a calmer tone” in response to his line “I fear our nation may never recover” (a recommendation in the analysis our reader sent) feels a little like a police officer telling a domestic violence survivor, “Calm down, ma’am. You’re being hysterical.”
Are we more concerned with systemic abuse or that the victims and witnesses to this abuse present themselves in a palatable manner?
But on the other hand – what are we trying to achieve in our opinion section? Is it a place for the community to candidly express our thoughts and feelings so long as we meet basic standards of factualness and nonviolence? Or should we aim higher, and insist that our op-eds adhere to, as the reader’s AI analysis put it, “a balanced, evidence-based approach of optimal persuasive strategies?”
Should we insist on higher standards in the pursuit of creating a space for healthy, good-faith dialogue? Is doing that more likely to achieve a robust community debate, or simply put fewer voices in our pages and lessen the extent to which the Bulletin reflects its readers?
These aren’t just rhetorical questions and I hope to hear from our readers about this. We often say at the Bulletin that our goal is to “inform and connect.” I believe we do the “inform” part quite well, and I want to be sure we are doing our best on the “connect” piece, too.
Polarization is a pandemic, and connection is the cure. We need to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem. But what does that look like when it comes to our opinion section policy? Send your thoughts to Heila@PikesPeakBulletin.org and let me know if I have your permission to print your message as a letter to the editor.
