KEN GRAHAM: FROM THE PUBLISHER

Recently we’ve received a few comments from readers saying they were glad The Times stopped running political columns from the Washington Post Syndicate. Granted, the number of those comments is small – I could count them on one hand – but I’m sure there are others with similar feelings who didn’t get around to sharing them with us.

The comments in question generally made the point that these readers didn’t like seeing “liberal” political views published in The Times – to the point that some were prepared to cancel their subscriptions had we not stopped.

(Actually, our decision to stop using the Post syndicate after June was mostly a financial one. It is fairly expensive for a small paper like ours and, besides political columns, it includes access to a huge number of feature and news stories. We weren’t getting enough use out of it to justify the cost.)

Regarding those reader comments, I can only guess that the phrase “Washington Post” is synonymous with “liberal” in these folks’ minds. Because if they had actually read the columns we ran, they would have seen that there were plenty “conservative” opinions expressed.

I will admit that overall, the Post probably leans somewhat to the left, though not as much as, say, the New York Times. But I would also say that, on the whole, the columns we ran probably skewed some to the right.

Nearly every week the first half of this year, we ran a weekly column by Post columnist George Will. Mr. Will is one of the most conservative major columnists America has ever seen. He’s been writing for the Post since the 1970s, and has been a relentless critic of Democratic administrations, and occasionally Republican ones (including the current one).

One of the reasons I chose to run columns by George Will on these pages (yes, I am the one who picks the political columns that run here – don’t blame any of the other staff) is that he has an illustrious history with this paper. His columns ran regularly in The Times for nearly two decades – in the 1990s and 2000s.

During just the months of May and June this year, we ran columns from the Post syndicate written by Hugh Hewitt, Erick Erickson, Arvik Roy, Romesh Ponnuru, Marc Thiesen and Charles Koch. Google them and you’ll find they are all bona fide “conservatives.” We ran some less conservative pieces as well, but that’s part of political give and take that I think is important on an opinion page.

Besides the fact that the commenters don’t appear to have read the columns in question, I think what disappoints me the most is that some readers of this little rag of ours would rather cancel their subscriptions than risk being exposed to political opinions that don’t match up squarely with their own.

Please understand that in selecting the columns I chose to run in The Times – whether liberal, moderate or conservative – it was never my intent to try to sway readers to a particular point of view, or even to change political views at all.

My only goal was to give you, the reader, something to think about. I believe one of the most interesting and fulfilling things you can do is try to wrap your mind around an idea that is different from any ideas you currently have. Try to think about why someone else would have an opinion that differs from your own.

If you make that effort, there’s a small chance you might change your views a bit. But there’s an even better chance that, by thinking clearly and carefully about the opinions expressed by others, whether you agree with them or not, you’ll be able to strengthen and clarify your own opinions.