Inherent bias of identity politics creates cynics

What you describe as "solid reporting" that is "tough but fair" looks more like identity politics and finger-wagging elitism. This feckless sermonizing is characterized by an overreliance on "unnamed sources" (essentially, gossip); the glorification of certain causes; the deployment of so-called "experts" disguised as "fact checkers" to conclude that a challenged speaker's statement must be "false" if the "expert" disagrees; a complete lack of any context that refutes preordained conclusions, and a sanitization designed to eliminate any possibility of offending one identity group or another ... except possibly white heterosexual males.

These inherent biases breed the cynicism you purport to loathe and drive people to alternate sources - real or fake - for the "truth."

Admittedly - and thankfully - the Daily Herald refrains from this tendency in most of its local reporting; however, virtually all of its national and international stories are sourced verbatim from Bloomberg, Associated Press or The Washington Post, three of the worst offenders. It was therefore most distressing to see you recently try to defend the Post by attacking those who identify these biases as being biased themselves and "a relatively small portion of our readership." This same attitude is reflected in the conclusion others have suggested that "a relatively small portion" of "deplorables" elected Donald Trump. It's insulting.

This is not The Washington Post of the Watergate era. In your words: "that was then and this is now." The Post is now owned by Amazon (Jeff Bezos), which is slowly attempting to control everything else in our lives, so it is not surprising that it seeks to control the news.

You are correct that opinion and persuasion belong on the editorial pages. You do this paper a disservice by allowing them to seep into reporting. Despite your sermonizing, you do not really seem serious about combating fake news.

Ken Drost

Prospect Heights