In response to ‘A reader calls us out’: Opinion doesn’t need a ‘balanced approach’
Dear Editor,
In response to your op-ed in the May 2 Pikes Peak Bulletin (“A reader calls us out and we consider his point”), a few things from it struck me enough to share my thoughts with you.
First off, while I have on occasion used AI, having this computer generated analysis as the basis for arguing the validity of someone’s personal thoughts and point of view seems a bit ironic. To be a bit ironic myself, AI defines “opinion writing” as a “personal belief or viewpoint on a topic, often expressed with reasoning and evidence to support it.”
The opinion writers noted in your article have, in my opinion, done just that – expressed themselves with their reasoning and evidence – like it or not.
You have questioned in your op-ed if there should be a requirement that the op-ed pieces in the Bulletin provide “a balanced … approach” (again, AI defined). Without relying on AI for me to sort this out, I find it contradictory to require a “balanced approach” to one’s personal thoughts and actions (aka opinion).
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it.
Rob Danin
In response to ‘A reader calls us out’: Don’t censor emotion in opinion pieces
Dear Editor,
I agree with the humans, Hazlehurst and Epstein, and not the AI, that the new administration’s actions – dismantling agencies, mining our data, retribution campaign, blowing past courts and Congress, etc. – are outrageous, as a factual matter. Rhetorical excess is appropriate here because of the consequences. I do not want opinion writers to be censored for their emotional expression.
I agree with your standards of factuality and non-violence. Under the rubric of ‘violence,’ I would add profanity and also speech that advocates taking away the Constitutional rights of others without due process of law. If Trump supporters can meet these standards, I welcome their opinions.
David Litvak
Dear reader,
We do not print profanity, though it is (in my mind, I haven’t consulted with the board or other staff on this) a choice based on inclusion rather than preventing violence. Profanity could drive away readers while adding nothing of value to the paper.
It looks like we are headed toward a difficult national conversation on due process and civil rights. Actually, scratch that: we’re already there. We likely will print different viewpoints and encourage dialogue. A newspaper opinion section, equitably fact-checked, is a good forum for this conversation – certainly it beats a social media comments section. Hate speech towards any group will not be printed.
Heila Ershadi, aka the editor
In response to ‘A reader calls us out’: Hazlehurst is calm enough
Dear Editor:
I have been a subscriber to the Journal and the Bulletin for many years. I was written up in the September 10, 1993 Journal for climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro and again in the May 18, 2006 Bulletin when my husband, Walt, had a birthday and we had pink flamingos scattered across our lawn.
As to John Hazelhurst, his is the first column I read in the Bulletin. His May 2, 2025 column (‘Trump, Macbeth and other villains’) was quite “calm.” I love hearing his opinion and usually agree with most. The Bulletin always states that his message is not the views of the Bulletin. I look forward to his pieces.
Shirley Law
Join the Community Conversation
Please send your letters to the editor to heila@pikespeakbulletin.org by noon on the Tuesday before publication and include your first and last name as well as contact information. Please cite your sources for any statistics or other factual assertions. Letters under 500 words that do not need extensive fact-checking are more likely to be published. The Pikes Peak Bulletin does not endorse opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor.
