Another year done: Our responsibility
Nearly 1,000 editorials later, another year draws to a close. And it has been another year of this newspaper's opinions and commentaries being, as Benjamin Franklin noted in another era, “frequently censured and condemned by different persons for printing things they say ought not to be printed.”
In 2013, that would include many “leaders” — those in private commerce and those supposedly doing the “public's business” — who have dishonored the very concept of leadership.
But unlike old Ben, whose words come from a 1731 editorial in The Pennsylvania Gazette, we offer no apologies for our views. For they have remained a steady and trustworthy beacon illuminating myriad paths regularly turned foggy by purveyors of government-knows-best command economics, aficionados of “progressivism” (i.e., socialism) and “national industrial policy,” cackling corporatists and their acolytes defending their diving into your pockets, all believing liberty and free markets are but quaint and outmoded precepts.
The evergreen debate regarding the proper role and function of government remained chief among the issues on which we've editorialized this year. Our positions have been consistent and clear. Never have you found — nor ever will you find — weasel words masquerading as opinion. And as 2014 bows, we'll continue to expose and opine on the mountebankery that's sure to follow, be it around the nation, around the commonwealth, around the region or around the corner.
If criticism is deserved — and sometimes stinging critiques we have offered — it will be delivered in the appropriate meter. If praise is due — and praise, sometimes profuse, we generously have bestowed — it will be delivered in proper measure as well.
But dissent, dear friends, must never be mistaken for disloyalty to the cause of finding solutions to our mutual challenges. For we firmly believe that the negative consequences of unchallenged, misguided “solutions” are a far greater threat to our liberties and fortunes than healthy dissent and robust debate ever could be.
Hence, it is in this spirit in which we wholeheartedly subscribe to Mr. Franklin's directive in that same 18th-century dispatch to “request all who are angry” with us “on account of printing things they don't like (to) calmly consider these following particulars”:
• “That the opinions of men are almost as various as their faces ...”
• “That the business of printing has chiefly to do with men's opinions; most things that are printed tending to promote some, or opposite other ...”
• “That it is unreasonable in any one man or set of men to expect to be pleased with everything that is printed ...”
• “Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public; and that when truth and error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter ...”
• “That if all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”
Our commitment to you is to fight the worthy battle against avarice and contemporary iniquities, wherever they occur and no matter their convention. You expected no less of us in 2013. And we promise not to shrink from our sacred responsibility in 2014.
Happy New Year!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- For U.S. Senate, W.Va.: Elect Shelley Moore Capito
- Monsour’s legacy: A bitter pill
- U.N. Watch: Gun-grabbers unite!
- For the Pennsylvania House: Ortitay, Krieger and Logan
- The Fast & Furious scandal: Sunshine ahead?
- Philly’s schools: The real injustice
- For U.S. House in Ohio & West Virginia: Bill Johnson and David McKinley
- The drug database: Government overreach
- McCaffery’s suspension: Castille’s concurrence