Dear Editor,
I am absolutely sick of your biased articles that you try to pass off as election coverage. Despite myself, I’ve read almost every issue of the ET in the years I’ve been at school. I’ve read some good articles, and some bad ones, but have never been so disgusted at the paper as I read your political commentary.
We get it, you like Ron Paul. So does 4 percent of the country. Seriously, could you at least try to hire some writers who will write something close to a balanced article? Go ahead, write a negative article. Ask the hard questions. But don’t just say unfounded lies bout a candidate. Do your research. And cover all the candidates. And by that, I mean all. Not just your favorite. That’s what journalism is about – fair and balanced coverage, not about writing your latest love letter to a dying campaign for president.
Ron Paul has probably gotten a half dozen articles in this paper over the last few semesters, every single one of them singing his praises, saying he’s the only realistic candidate, and generally going on in what can only be described as a deliberate attempt to push your own agenda at the sacrifice of the journalistic pursuits of veracity and fairness. You like Ron Paul. His supporters have a fetish for chalking his name. From what I’ve seen, the only other candidate you’ve written about was Obama, and that piece can’t exactly be considered well-researched or fairly written either.
And in case you’ve been drinking the Ron Paul Kool-Aid too much, here’s a lengthy list of candidates who have, despite being ignored by the East Tennessean, gathered more votes nationally than Ron Paul: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
– Elliot CennamoEditor’s note: Since last semester, the ET has published three articles and seven letters to the editor about Ron Paul.

Author