Letters to the Media
Working in the media most of my career, I understand how effective a letter to the editor or broadcast letter can be to send a message to a wide audience. The key to getting one published or broadcast is to keep it concise and stick to one or two points at a time - something I admittedly have a problem doing because there is so much to cover.
The following are some of my many letters to media folks through the years. The first one was a short one that I am especially proud of that was actually printed. Most were long and have not been published. Responses, if any, are in italics.
July 17, 1986
Dallas Times Herald
Dear Editors:
If President Reagan wants to find an appropriate site to dump nuclear waste, all he has to do is look out his window.
With all the bullstuff out there, no one would notice.
Jackson Thoreau
July 31, 2002
Time Magazine
That was a very interesting package on Iraq. It's obvious that Bush and many in his regime are pushing for a "wag the dog" scheme, for us to invade Iraq before the mid-term elections to boost Republicans' re-election campaigns in a wave of renewed patriotism, divert attention from domestic scandals, and finish what Bush's father left uncompleted.
Bush says Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction it plans to use on the U.S. and we need to stop Iraq from doing so. Some who would know, like Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, say that Iraq has no such capabilities. Bush says Iraq had ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network that carried out the Sept. 11 acts. Even some officials with the CIA and Israel's intelligence agency have said Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, although our CIA director has testified about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda. Bush says Hussein could be responsible for sending anthrax spores through the mail. Others believe the likely source of anthrax terrorism is domestic.
Compare Iraq, with its 2,000 tanks and several hundred aircraft, to our country, arguably the most powerful, sophisticated military machine in known history. We spend about $396 billion a year on the military - and that number is expected to increase substantially in the coming years [at the height of the Cold War with the former Soviet Union, we spent about $300 billion]. The closest country in military spending is Russia at $60 billion annually, according to the Center for Defense Information. Iraq spends a piddling $1.4 billion on defense, less than Vietnam, Columbia, and Kuwait. Another country in that "axis of evil" Bush wants us to fear so much, North Korea, spends even less at $1.3 billion. Iran, the third "evil" country, is up there at $9.1 billion but still only ranks 13th in the world in military spending.
Why are we supposed to fear a country that we spend almost 300 times more to defend? Is it because much of what we spend actually goes to defend the security of other countries like Germany, or more accurately, the security of U.S.-owned multinational corporations in those countries? In keeping with the wave of fraudulent accounting in private corporations, the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in past transactions, according to the U.S. Inspector General's office.
I'm all for combatting terrorism - Clinton and Gore tried to get airport security beefed up several years ago, but the Republican-led Congress said no - but this War on Terrorism is becoming an excuse and an opportunity for some fat cats to get fatter at the expense of the rest of us [note the oil companies salivating to take over Iraq's oil business], just as the Cold War was in earlier decades. We can spend $1 trillion a year on defense, and someone will still figure out how to plant a bomb somewhere. The British learned that in dealing with the Irish Republican Army, who confounded them for decades.
I do believe we have fought just wars. My father fought in one, World War II, when we were attacked and the Nazi criminals threatened to dominate our world. If I was of age during such a war as that, I would have gladly answered the call.
But I can't support us invading Iraq, under these circumstances. It's sad that I have to say we now seem more like the ones who want world domination than the ones who would fight against the forces that want to rule the planet.
Jackson Thoreau
Dear Reader:
Thank you for letting us hear from you. The editors appreciate the
interest that prompted you to write, and they have made attentive note of
your comments. We hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with
us.
Best wishes.
TIME Letters
Dec. 6, 2001
Washington Post Editors
Greetings:
There is no denying that the Sept. 11 acts of terrorism in the U.S. were sad, tragic, and horrifying. I grieve not only for the victims and family members, but for the subsequent victims and their families in Afghanistan and other places.
However, I must vigorously disagree with the call to expand the bombing campaign to Iraq and other countries sounded by Washington Post columnists Richard Cohen ["And Now to Iraq," Nov. 30] and Charles Krauthammer ["Victory Changes Everything," Nov. 30].
On the same day those columns were published in the Post, some people were walking from Washington, D.C., to New York City to call for peace and an end to the killing. Those included family members of Sept. 11 victims, such as Amber Amundson, whose husband, Craig Scott Amundson, an enlisted specialist in the U.S. Army, was killed while working at the Pentagon. Though their message got through to many directly and via the media, I am concerned that their pleas for peace are barely heard above the war drums.
The main problem with these bombing campaigns is they don't really do anything about stopping terrorism from its roots. That is, if terrorism - the weapon of the weaker foe against the stronger that has been with us for centuries [the British considered some of our American forefathers to be terrorists for violent protests and armed attacks against English soldiers before the Revolutionary War in the 1770s] - can ever be fully eradicated in an unjust, war-crazed, power-hungry society.
The bombing primarily affects the average people who were most likely not involved in the September terrorism and don't want war against us. Many soldiers of the militaries our troops face are not crazed, anti-American terrorists, but teens who are forced to defend themselves or die. Their outdated weapons are no match for our high-tech wizardry. It's a turkey shoot. When we bomb military targets, such acts are mindlessly killing people as coldly as the Arab and Muslim terrorists slaughtered a few months ago. And our bombing is not even limited to military targets, but has hit homes, hospitals, businesses, farms, and other non-military sites, resulting in directly killing civilians, including children.
What justification do we have to bomb and kill innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other places? What happened to "Thou shall not kill?" It seems our main justification is to gain vengeance with the blood of more victims, not justice through the courts, as we did when white American terrorists bombed the Oklahoma building in 1995.
If it is now a "capital offense" for nations to "harbor terrorists," as Charles Krauthammer says, why is not the U.S. held accountable for harboring hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which has terrorized Americans for decades, and the right-wing, anti-government militias that fueled terrorists like Timothy McVeigh? Is it because those are white, American terrorists, not Arab ones in a faraway country?
Even if we topple dictators like Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who like Osama bin Laden the U.S. armed at one time, and crazed leaders like bin Laden, others will rise in their places. Do you think the Arab and Muslim victims and their families will merely forget our bombing campaign? Or will they wait years, even decades, for vengeance? Will our children and grandchildren pay for our sins and shortsightedness, as we all paid on Sept. 11 for the pain our government's military and economic policies caused to many people in the Middle East in previous years?
Some estimate that 200,000 Iraqis died in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91 and since then due to bombing raids and UN-imposed economic sanctions that have resulted in the slow, painful deaths of thousands of kids. We are the world's leading arms dealer, and have armed various countries and warring factions in the Middle East for decades. Selling someone weapons is like selling someone drugs; if we target drug dealers in the "war on drugs," we should target weapons dealers in the "war on terrorism." In the last few decades, we have also rained bombs on numerous countries - from Iraq to Vietnam. The ones who suffered the most were the average people who didn't want these wars, they just want to raise a family and live like anyone else. While we cannot take full responsibility for such violence and hate, we should be willing to face up to our past and admit our role in the wrongdoings.
Instead of continuing a bombing campaign that will eventually cause more rounds of senseless violence, we should be rallying around the flag of the earth. We should be working for peace and freedom and liberty and justice for all through nonviolent methods, for everyone around the world. We should be working on a fairer system of distributing wealth and resources around the world, which will mean more sacrifices by us than not driving our SUVs as much. We live in a country that has 6 percent of the world's population and almost 60 percent of its wealth. Is that really "liberty and justice for all?"
It is very difficult to oppose this bombing campaign after what occurred on Sept. 11. I have traveled through Germany and talked to many young people who cannot believe their parents and grandparents did not openly oppose Hitler and the Nazis before and during World War II. While the current situation is different, I am concerned that one day young people in this country will be asking older people like me what we tried to do to prevent the killing and starvation of untold thousands of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries.
That is why I have to stand up and speak out against this latest round of violence and war when I have the chance. I believe in bringing the perpetrators of terrorism to justice in a court of law. That is justice. Bombing innocent people is not justice. It makes us the big bully, the Goliath having to fend off the slingshots of the Davids.
This is a dark time in our world's history, but let's not make it darker. Let's stop bombing other countries. Let's resolve to really become part of the global community, not be the big bully who doesn't want to share, or just gives others table scraps when they rebel. This will take rethinking our priorities, sacrificing our standard of living, and living more wholesome, spiritual lives.
Sincerely,
Jackson Thoreau
No reply.
Sent to numerous media, including Newsmax, CSPAN, CNN, USA Today, etc.:
February 26, 2001
Greetings:
As a journalist for the print media myself, I have to express my disappointment at the performance of the major media so far in covering the Bush Administration. Save for a few articles and broadcast reports, most articles and reports have been written or broadcast like they are done by lapdog Bush supporters, rather than the government watchdogs we should be.
One of numerous examples is the false story that the Clintons stole items off Air Force One. Most major media ran these assertions from the Republican propagandists without checking the facts. Even Bush days later was forced to admit nothing was stolen after the republicans could not come up with any proof.
Another lie perpetuated by FOX and perhaps other media on Sunday was that none of the civilians on board the Greeneville sub that killed people in an accident were Republican donors. All you have to do to find out this is wrong is do a simple search of the Federal elections web site at http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/fecimg/norindsea.html
and you will learn that Greeneville passenger John M. Hall of Sealy, TX, donated $500 to a Republican in 1998. Also the husband of Greeneville passenger Helen Cullen of Houston, Roy W. Cullen, donated $1,000 to Bush in 1999. She comes from a family that is a big donor to Bush and reps. Father-in-law, Roy H. Cullen, the owner of Quintana Petroleum of Houston, also donated $1,000 to Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 and $38,000 to the Republican National Committee between 1997-2000. Mrs. Roy Cullen gave $38,000 herself to the RNC
from 1997-2000.
Numerous other Cullen family members gave boatloads of money to Bush, the RNC and other republicans. Among the other Cullens giving $1,000 to Bush in 1999 -- the legal limit for individual donors -- are Harry h.
cullen, Harry H. Cullen Jr., Roy Walter Cullen, Mary R. Cullen,
Meredith T. Cullen and Rosanette S. Cullen. The Cullen name is all over Houston on university departments, streets, arts venues and other places, where Bush lived for numerous years.
Do you really believe that Bush does not know Helen Cullen?
The only problem with the web search is it doesn't include 2000 campaign donor records -- you would have to go through those by hand, a time-consuming process. It also doesn't include contributions of less than $250 -- someone else could be giving less than that to keep their name off public records. You in the major media should have the resources to check the 2000 records and other places to see if any other Greeneville civilians' names turn up. This is a big issue -- one that speaks about influence peddling and paybacks by the Bush campaign to donors, the kind of story you like to crucify Clinton over -- and you should equally pursue this with Bush. That is called journalistic fairness, something I trust you have not forgotten.
Sincerely,
Jackson Thoreau
One of the few responses was from CSPAN. Its recommendation to sound off on message boards is a good one we should pursue:
Thank you for your note. Are you a member of C-SPAN's online community?
C-SPAN provides viewers with the opportunity to offer feedback and help in a few ways: by participating
in online town hall meetings and discussion forums.
In this way, the time
and effort you put into your message will reach a
large number of concerned
citizens who want to discuss this issue with you.
To participate in C-SPAN's online community, first
you need to register to
become a member at:
http://www.c-span.org/community/registerweb.asp
Once you
have registered, you will be able to visit the
community activities page and
choose from a selection of active discussions.
Community Manager
Feb. 22, 2001
Dear National Review Editors:
I was shocked and appalled that you not only published a column by John Derbyshire that came close to suggesting Chelsea Clinton should be murdered, but that you are keeping it linked on your Web site.
As a journalist myself, I support the First Amendment and freedom of press. But that does not give us the right to call for someone's murder, especially a young person who has done nothing.
Derbyshire writes how the "great despotisms" murdered the families of enemies of the state. "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature, the taint cannot be ignored," he writes. "In Stalin’s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an ‘enemy of the people.’ The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, ‘clan liability.’ In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished ‘to the ninth degree’: that is, everyone in the offender’s own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. [This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet - "let God sort 'em out."]
I find it hypocritical, at the very least, that Derbyshire did not write such a column when Bush Sr. left the White House in early 1993. Can you imagine what would happen if a writer for a Democratic journal like The
Nation even remotely suggested Bush's children should be murdered? Fair-minded Republicans, Democrats, and independents should be outraged.
Again, I ask you to remove this column from your site and Derbyshire from your list of contributors.
Sincerely,
Jackson Thoreau
Of course, the National Review did not remove Derbyshire; you can still read the offensive column here. But perhaps such letters as mine helped the Review later drop that liberal-hating, hypocritical, witch-with-a-b, Ann Coulter. Phil Donahue, an excellent fight-the-righter, really blasted Coulter on his MSNBC show on July 18, 2002. I generally admired Bill Maher for putting liberals on his former "Politically Incorrect" ABC show, but his blatant kissing up to Coulter made me nominate him for Media Whores' Online's A-List.
Nov. 21, 2000
Kevin McCarthy
KLIF [right-wing Dallas radio station]
Dear Kevin McCarthy:
At one time, I thought you were one of the moderates in local radio. But lately, you have sounded more like a rabid right-wing dog.
What happened? Did you hang out too much with David Gold and the other right-wingers?
Sincerely,
Jackson Thoreau
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:29:49 -0600
From: "kevin mccarthy" kevin570@home.com
nope, i'm just another radical right wing conspiracist (like the ones
that invented the monica story)...regards...kmc
And that's the typical response you'll get from a member of the right-wing corporate mainstream media.
Return to Jackson's home page