The Aug. 1 column by Jim Slusher on editorial objectivity caused me to sit back and wonder why it was written. It referred to the previous Sunday's editorial raising ethical questions surrounding a Taiwan trip taken by U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam. The trip received advance approval from the Congressional Ethics Committee. The editorial questioned the adequacy of this approval.
Evidently the Herald received quite a backlash from supporters of Peter Roskam. Perhaps that should have closed the book on the issue -- a position taken and feedback received -- but it didn't. Why did Jim Slusher feel it was necessary to revisit the issue in his slightly smug Aug. 1 editorial in defense of the previous week's editorial?
Contact information ( * required )
Also, why did the Herald decide to print an Aug. 1 news article on the much more expansive travels of U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and others? It looks to the reader to be a belated attempt at fairness. Why wouldn't the Herald have included all of this in its original article instead of focusing on the one, preapproved trip taken by Peter Roskam? Just wondering.