Missing the point, proving criticism

Your sanctimonious editorial about "use of The (Washington) Post" news service not only misses the point, it concedes the validity of the criticism you received.

You state: "We've got an obligation to provide the best reporting we can ... Our belief in (the Post) is not an agenda; it's an obligation." Really? Where was that obligation during the presidency of Obama? In your editorial you reluctantly admit: "(W)e must acknowledge, we wish the Post had been as aggressive and as critical during the presidency of ... Obama. On that score, its critics have a point."

Then why do you say"(w) e make no apologies"? And why do you sidestep what that point means? Your use of the Post before Trump was a sell-out of your "obligation to provide the best reporting (you) can." And yet you don't even try to explain that sell-out.

Further, that utter lack of explanation makes a mockery of your plea that you have to use the Post now because "facts matter." The facts apparently did not matter before - when you say the Post was not as aggressive (or) as critical as it should have been - but you believe the facts matter now. In other words, the facts matter when you care about them.

In case you were wondering that is called having an agenda.

Let me be clear: I am not a fan of Trump, Obama or any politician; and I am certainly not a fan of you preaching to me. What I would like is for the Herald to hold itself accountable to the standards you tout it lives by. Saying "that was then and this is now" is hardly accountability. Just ask any kid who has tried that line on their parents.

William Crimmins

South Barrington