As far as expecting postings based on fact or not to be unbiased, it’s impossible. When a person presents their writings it’s for a reason, and that determines the focus of the writing.

Even attempting to level the direction of the posting is a form of bias writing, there simply is no true neutrality in writing; only the pretense.

Recognizing biases in writing is dependent on the intelligence, experience, and position of the reader to topic of discussion.

In addition, if a writer comes to a fundamental understanding based on events or situations; it could be argued equally valid given no substantiated thoroughly tested countering statement.

I mean even laws of physics were opinions, theories, until finally being accepted by the majority as “relative truths”.

First, I want to affirm our goal of getting everybody’s opinion on the Advocate’s Viewpoints Page. The editorial board met today and discussed what should be printed in guest columns.

The editorial board has decided the following after reviewing your comments:

Guest columns will carry a higher standard. We want this feature to be well informed, well written, thought out, researched, topical and timely.

Letters to the editor will be published for all other submitted opinions except libelous or other letters with serious problems.

This policy allows all to express their opinions on our Viewpoints Page. Again, we thank all of our readers for their input on this issue. We continue to invite you to submit letters and guest columns.

As usual, you can submit letters by delivery to the Advocate, 311 E. Constitution St.; mail to P.O. Box 1518, Victoria 77902; fax to 361-574-1220; or e-mail to letters@vicad.com. Guest columns can be submitted the same way. Thanks.

Sincerely, Tim Delaney - Community Conversation Editor Victoria Advocate tdelaney@vicad.com 361-580-6313

Hi - I've read all of your posts with great interest and understanding. I intend to take your input with me to the editorial board meeting today. I'll be writing later about the results or consensus of that meeting.
Thanks again for your opinions.

Sincerely,
Tim Delaney
Community Conversation Editor

Obama does not want America to know that he attended Occidental as an exchange student from Indonesia--when his former classmates heard that a student from Occidental was in the running for President, none of them recognized his name. Not because he changed from "Barry" to "Barack", but because he changed from "Soetoro" to "Obama".

I'll return with a link.

The U.S Justice Foundation itself is fighting Obama's lawyers for 1. His long form birth certificate. 2. His records from law school which would have information of the country he is a citizen of. So far Obama and his lawyers have blocked every effort to retrieve this information. ref www.usjf.net

Even members of the U.S. Military is questioning Obama's eligibilty to be the Commander in Cheif.
There all so have been lawsuits filed in all fifty states wanting to know if the election process was violated, if procedure verifying Obama's eligibilty was followed.
all this itself tell's me that there is something more going on here than rumors.

Back to the original post, to print or not, a little late for that it was printed.

Concerning what Mr. Aparicio said he hoped was not true..........

I voiced my opinion months ago about the subject.

All it would have taken was for then candidate Obama to produce his long form birth certificate to end all the speculation. That did not happen, at least not to any news source other than factcheck, at least none that have presented evidence ie: a copy of it, that I have seen.

All that being said, why wouldn't President Obama request the release of the long form live birth certificate, after all we already know who his father and mother are, his date of birth and I hope which hospital he was born in.

The only other information that would be on the long form vs. the long form would be the doctors name, time of birth, birth weight and length.

Why not release that information and get the bruha ha over with?

What would be so special about which doctor or birth weight or time of birth to not have it public information like everything else about the President?

President Obama, authorize the release of the long form and get all this nonsense over with. ( which is what I advocated months ago.)

What I do usually when I use the FRC is also mention the university study they cite. Then I find a "secular" source to corroborate it.

HOWEVER, the irony was not missed when I was told to not use FRC because it's "biased" and then the staff person turned around and used it himself.

That’s the old Justice Potter Stewart phrase “I know it when I see it” standard.

Quoting from the Family Research should be OK, if you include a disclaimer..IMO

For example if I use MSNBC, that would turn off 90% of Victoria but I could say it was from the AP source on the MSNBC site…
I remember you didn’t like the disclaimers Joe Bean attached to many of the letters to the Editor.

I liked it, because it gives the letter writer a chance to submit a bias letter…It keeps honest people honest….I wish the networks had disclaimers every time a politician made a speech; like “He got $xxx contributions from Exxon” or on this date he/she said this. It would put a stop to the spin.

BigJ I disagree conservatism may be hijacked from time to time but the fundamentals of conservatism are sound.

I'd like to know how future letter-writing guidelines might change if they will change, and if they will be applied equally to all.

The guidelines in place under the current editor I thought were workable, with common sense applied.

I, as a conservative, was told in the past that I could not used the "biased" Family Research Council information to support my writing, but then the old editor used it himself to support his own work months later.

What's up? Will all letter writers need to quote from peer-reviewed journals or cease and desist?

I liked Joe Bean;he treated me fairly:-)
Except maybe that one time,maybe twice.

FactCheck and Snopes have been wrong, self-admittedly, several times in the past. They may be a good place to start a quest for the truth, but by no means are infallible.

So your views are our views and our views are other views and your views? (I am imagining a Reno 911 or SNL skit.)

I agree that if he is a teacher, then his material should be backed up.

That's why I think it would be great to see Aparicio's answer to this.

I'm sure he can do the leg work required to support his position. Just hope he DOES.

Here's my core point: I don't care to see someone censored just because they are from the "right" or even the left.

Mean Joe Bean told me once I couldn't use the Family Research Council information on one of my letters once. Fine- I found the "peer-reviewed" journals to support my letter.

THEN....

Six months later the guy turns around as uses Family Research Council info to document his own work!

It wasn't long after that that he left, but I never will forget it.

How are you going to get Grandma from Shiner or Gramps from Victoria to document using peer-reviewed journals for their points of view? Ain't going to happen.

I feel like the bar is going to be raised for some of us, yet others will scoot under and say what they like. THIS is my concern.

maryann
I am surprised you said “If people take his opinion as fact, that’s not the Advocate’s problem.”

Mr. Aparicio is a teacher and I think we should rightfully assume his article has been thoroughly researched.

I know if my grandchildren were your students, you would teach them without a bias.

You have a history of researching and furnishing creditable references for all of your letters.
I might not agree but that is my problem…:-)

Hell Maryann, what kind of a welcome is that Mike? ;-}

What I have found is that a Certification of Live Birth was presented by Obama:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

Also, according to this site, a Certfication of Live Birth does require more verification for certain applications, as it is a shorter document than a Certificate of Birth.

"A "Certification of Live Birth" is a short form birth certificate. The information included in the document may differ from state to state. A "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii will include the name and sex of the person, date of birth, hour of birth, island of birth, county of birth, mother's maiden name, mother's race, father's name, father's race, date accepted by registrar, a certificate number and seal. The seal may be different depending on the year it was printed.

A Birth Certificate, or "Certificate of Live Birth," is the long form birth certificate and contains more detailed information, including signatures of doctor(s), witnesses, vital statistics (length and weight), etc.

The Hawai'i State Department does not make clear whether the Certification is equal proof of birth of birth but according to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands:

"In order to process your application (to verify that you are a genuine native Hawaiian), DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
So, a long form Certificate (which requires less verification) is irrefutable and is never rejected when applying for jobs, passports, Hawaiian land, etc. and the Certification would require more extensive verification."

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/app...

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-record...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the...

Perhaps Mr. Aparicio could document some of this in a future guest column.

I agree that Snopes.com (infallible dudes) have verified that the Certification is valid. No problem there.

But I do comment that some people do care if Obama has presented a long form birth certificate or a "Certification of Birth."

I am not interested in order to contest any electon results. Just interested. Period.

My interest was piqued by Aparicio's letter, and apparently other's were "less piqued." lol

Hell maryann welcome back.
The document Dan Rather presented was doctored and should not have been presented but the facts still remain that former president Bush’s last nine months of service are not accounted for. Dan Rather was in charge of what he presented; Aparicio is not..Rather was the news director..He apologized, Aparicio will not, he lost his job, Aparicio will not.

The state of Hawaii has shown the original birth certificate to the proper authorities and everyone but the right is satisfied.Factcheck.org and Snoops.com verifies the accuracy of the birth certificate….Paying homage to the doubters does not serve a purpose.

I think SmarteePantz hit the nail on the head.

If I remember correctly, Dan Rather kept going after George Bush for months until Rather's evidence turned up false. Few on the left wanted Rather to stop bringing up such old news.

Is it an "untruth" that Obama's full birth certificate has not been disclosed? Aparicio got that one right. I think that is what drives this story.

Some would like it to go away, by censorship even.

What other "untruths" the VA is referring to, I don't know. What are they?

If Aparicio wrote lies, they shouldn't appear. If they are opinions based on facts, unless they are outrageous, let them be refuted. (Ah, yes, then there is the definition of "outrageous.")

I think that the Advocate ALREADY has guidelines for submitting letters to the editor and guest columns.

Why not just follow those? Have they been stretched? Stop stretching them.

If something is written that is mean-spirited and unverifiable with facts and statistics like "Gays are miserable people," which I did indeed see in the VA, then it shouldn't appear, IMO.

I cringed when I saw that unverifiable, mean-spirited statement.

But to ban factual information like the President hasn't submitted a full birth certificate is keeping information from the public.

Finally it's thought-policing to try to control people's reactions to Aparicio's column. Man, some big dog must have really complained about his column!

Is Aparicio biased? Sure he is, just like Joe Galloway and Leon Pitts that appear on the same page.

Also, if people take his opinion as fact, that's not the Advocate's problem. Schools still do teach the difference between fact and opinion.

It sounds like though-policing to try to control the reactions people have from letters to the editor or guest columns. If someone took Aparicio's suppostion as fact, then that cannot be helped by the Advocate.

If you start censoring, will both sides liberals as well as conservative columnists be censored?

Isn't it better to have another writer to counter with his point of view?

We have a growing nanny-state. Please, no nanny newspaper!

Mr Aparicio clearly was trying to publish untruths. As a Government teacher he should be trying to teach critical thinking, yet he did not present two sides of the story. If he had I would not have seen it as a biased piece. He only presented the supposed facts indicating that our President is not a citizen. As a teacher of Government, it would have been comforting to see him examine how stories like this affect politics and why they arise. I do not think it should have been published as a column.

Maybe Mr. Aparicio's piece should have been included in the Letter to the Editor area versus the Guest Column section? That would have made it clearer as to the idea that is was his opinions. If you do a searh on the Internet for the "Cavuto Mark" you will understand the power of the question mark in journalism.