Dear Editor:
I wish to comment on the Letter to the Editor authored by Rev. Dr. Clifton Niles which appeared in The Anguillian of Friday 04th December, 2015:“AN EDITORIAL MUST BE AN EDITORIAL”.
I regularly read and appreciate the editorials published in The Anguillian. Although I do not always agree with the content, I was particularly favorably impressed with that of Friday, 20th of November, “DEMOCRACY OR DEMOCRISY”. I was therefore initially surprised to read Clifton Niles’ critical commentary. However, by the conclusion of re-reading my surprise dissipated within the context of my consideration of the multitude of factors involved in his letter.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “editorial” as “an essay in a newspaper or magazine that gives the opinions of its editors or publishers”. An “opinion” is defined as “a belief, judgement or a way of thinking about something”. Apparently Rev. Niles failed to take these definitions into consideration in the authorship of his letter. As such, by definition, his criticism of the editor and complaints regarding the content of the editorial are at best irrelevant and inappropriate. At worst it exemplifies precisely that about which he complains. His criticism and complaints are misguided. The Anguillian’s editorial was in fact just that – an editorial (and clearly so).
Clifton Niles is welcome to his view of the facts surrounding the incidents referenced in the editorial and, as the editor stated in relationship to the letter, rightfully entitled to state such. That is not in question. However, Rev. Niles complains that the editorial was “one-sided and partisan”. While this may or may not be, in neither case does such disenfranchise it as “an editorial”. Newspapers all over the free world editorialize on political content – and many even directly endorse political parties and candidates. News is news and editorials are just that – editorials. Do any of us really believe that the editor of a newspaper should not state his opinions when such are clearly labeled “editorial”? There was no foul here (well at least not by the Editor of The Anguillian).
Clifton Niles accuses the Editor of “imputing impure motives to people”. In the same breath he characterizes the editor as a “partisan political piper playing to please his ‘papa’”. Given Rev. Niles quote about great, average and small minds that sounds a bit small-minded.
By virtue of running for political office, Rev. Niles has made known that he has political aspirations and persuasions. I therefore find it curious that he should assume the position of a self-appointed judge of political objectivity. But then, none of us are immune to failing to see the “log in our eye”. I seriously doubt that this type of misguided criticism “raises the bar” on the quality of political discourse in Anguilla.
Thank you.
Citizen of Anguilla
