EDITORIAL: It's all a matter of opinion

Louis Pierard
Two of the more unusual letters received in the past week reveal a misunderstanding, bordering on offence, about the job of a newspaper.
One correspondent complains she was disappointed with some articles and editorials which, she said, did not represent fair opinion.
One example was Garth George's column which, she said was ``too right-wing'', another (perhaps a little strangely) was the daily Biblical quote and the third, an editorial disapproving of the release of Ahmed Zaoui which ``should portray the facts without personal opinion'', she said.
I find it perplexing that some readers insist that opinion needs to be ``objective''. Columns and editorials have to make a point. In doing so the writer has to take sides, and usually does so forcefully and robustly. Whatever the argument, someone's bound to disagree: The fact that they do so makes their own case no less subjective.
Opinion that is ambivalent is hardly worth publishing. Admittedly, editorialists and columnists do tend to claim the luxury of certitude, while others might concede there should be more room for grey between the black and white. Perhaps that is what Graham Greene meant when he wrote ``God exists only for leader writers''.
Nevertheless, the expression of opinion may be as one-eyed as the writer chooses. On controversial subjects someone is bound to take issue. They can have their say in the letters column. And they can be as vigorously partisan as they wish. The letter also complained that we quoted a marriage celebrant criticising the civil unions law. The celebrant was reported saying gay couples made her feel sick.
Should we not publish such opinion because the correspondent does not agree with it? Surprisingly, it is not uncommon to have the newspaper blamed for, or implicated in, the beliefs of those it reports.
Another correspondent has taken us to task for pointing out that the woman who died at a railway crossing accident near Dannevirke recently was the daughter of a gang boss shot dead in a central Napier street 11 years ago.
Signed off with ``yours in incredularity'' the writer asks: What is the relevance of this? Do we need to know that a: He was a gang leader and b: He was shot in the street? Are we trying to demean the father or daughter? Is it of interest to the reading public and do they need to know?
What's news? The connection was relevant because at the time, the shooting was a matter of considerable public concern. Reporting the fact that the man had been shot demeans no one but the killer and the fact is both relevant and interesting, however intrusive it might seem, because it helps fill out the picture. (It was of particular interest to me, as acting editor of the Daily Telegraph at the time, because the shooting had happened right outside my office window in Tennyson Street).
News is about people as much as it is about the events that affect them. Understandably, those closest to a personal tragedy are most likely to be aggrieved that details of it are reported.
However, I am confident that making the connection in what ultimately proved to be a double tragedy was not handled insensitively. Simply, it is what we do.