Roger Carasso

Letters the New York Times Did Not Print Roger Carasso

Publisher Marketing: I have sent many hundreds of letters to the New York Times "letters to the editor" in response to front-section articles in that newspaper. Over the last ten years or so, it has printed about one every three years, and not necessarily the better ones. What prompted these letters was the desire to expose and combat various hypocrisies and injustices systemic in our political life - for example, phony euphemisms such as "pro-life" instead of antichoice on abortion; "voter integrity" instead of voter suppression; "free speech" instead of drowning the political process in big money; "populist" instead of rightist pseudopopulists; or the international defense of "democracy" instead of championing free market capitalism and oligarchy, the latter two often being confused or equated with democracy. There were daily causes of serious omissions or disrespect for facts and truth, especially when dealing with controversial or conformist issues, hence the many letters. I begin this compilation with "taboo" letters on subjects the major media would not touch with a hundred-foot pole. That's our informal censorship. But they are only a sample. It might be helpful to start with the appendix. Part one gives background information on domestic matters with an emphasis on economics; the second part deals with international issues. The letters are arranged by topic and alphabetically (except for the first topic, "taboo subjects") and chronologically within each topic. The great majority of the letters are supposed to be limited to 150 words, more or less, as required by the New York Times, which leaves much unsaid. However, there are four op-ed letters that are much longer, and similarly not printed. Some topics of importance, like climate change, the National Rifle Association (NRA), racism, and LGBT rights, have been omitted or given little attention because New York Times coverage of these topics has not been too defective. If there is one underlying theme, it is the attack on democracy spearheaded by the Republican Party and abetted by a complaisant rightist Supreme Court. This theme assumes the dominant role of giant corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals. Evidence of this will find some repetition in the letters.