I’m not writing to debate the merits of “Save Our Streets.” I am writing to critique your paper’s pandering and obvious attempt to “sell” SOS to your readers.

In the April 13 letters to the editor section, the letters chosen to be published were 4 to 1 in favor of a yes vote, including the two-page opinion of Mr. Klaas who elaborated in detail upon selling the bond issue.

Are you saying that the letters were coming in at a 4-to-1 (yes-to-no) ratio? I don’t think so.

The headings chosen for the published letters were all “soft sell closes.” “Time is now …”, “Let’s fix …”, “Keep Auburn moving ….” Even the one vote no letter was given the soft sell heading of “Some streets never repaired.”

It was obvious the vote no letter (by Becky) was strategically placed by the Auburn Reporter to be last in the order of letters. Obvious, because if the reader is skimming the biased titles for content, why bother to read one more that “appears favorable to the cause,” or does the stamina of the reader come into play?

In these times, we have enough carnival barkers touting their sideshows. “Talking heads” everywhere. Am I wrong or isn’t it enough that the print media print the facts objectively without “spinning or selling” some preordained agenda?

By “spinning” the letters to the editor with your bias, you do not give the reader a voice as much as giving you a forum with a means to stack and spin the letters according to your agenda. It serves only to define you as a “spinner,” or in this case, SOSS!

– John H. Yorke, Sr.