I’m confused. Has the role of the media changed from the days of digging into issues, no matter who liked it or not, and reporting in an unbiased manner?

Let me state a few examples and maybe someone can tell me exactly what the role of reporters truly is.

We have an attorney general of the United States who directs the Department of Justice to drop charges against members of the New Black Panthers for blatant threats and intimidation at a polling place, all captured on videotape.

Then a former DOJ attorney, J. Christian Adams, resigns and testifies that the DOJ has been directed not to prosecute any minorities.

We have the NAACP approving a resolution that accuses tea party members of racism without a shred of proof. Not a shred of video or audio of any verified racial incident can be found and a $100,000 reward for proof remains unclaimed.

But we have video and audio of the leaders of the New Black Panthers calling for the killing of white people, white babies and white police officers in black neighborhoods.

For some reason, none of the big three networks, nor any paper in this state, seems to care to report these atrocities.

It was OK a few months ago for the secretary of Homeland Security to call myself and all other military veterans, gun owners and conservatives in general “domestic terrorists” without any media calling her to task for those comments.

I can just imagine that if any white person in this country called for the killing of members of another race, intimidated other races for exercising their rights, or accused any liberal group of being “domestic terrorists,” the paper companies couldn’t produce newsprint fast enough or the networks have enough time to air the outrage.

Is objective journalism completely dead in this country? I am starting to think that I’m getting my news from Cuba or Venezuela.

Marvin Allen

Litchfield

By what sophistry of reason is it legitimate for the U.S. Department of Justice to refuse to pursue charges of race-based crime simply because the victims were white and the perpetrators black?

The videotapes of New Black Panther Party militia who confront Philadelphia poll watchers with cudgels in their hands are unambiguous. Voter intimidation is a serious crime. It should be investigated.

The militia in question self-identified as members of the New Black Panther Party; it is the ideological successor to a terrorist organization from the 1970s. When questioned, a leader of this group referred to hating all white people and advocated killing “cracker babies.”

This is, at the very least, an example of racist hate speech. At worst, it is an incitement to mass murder. An organization whose leaders say such things should be investigated.

Yet, according to a whistle-blower, J. Christian Adams, who sacrificed his career in order to speak out, Attorney General Eric Holder has established a policy of not investigating charges of racially motivated crimes if the victims are white and the perpetrators are black.

Mr. Holder holds the highest law-enforcement job in our nation. The whistle-blower’s charges should be investigated.

If Holder is pursuing racist policies, he should be fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If he is not, then he deserved to meet his accusers, and be fully and publicly exonerated. The same applies to the Philadelphia case, and to the New Black Panther Party.

The U.S. Senate should immediately open an investigation, as should the Department of Justice. If these cases are not seriously pursued, then Mr. Holder’s moral authority will rival that of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe.

Our nation of laws can ill afford such a lack of confidence in our justice system.

Ralph K. Ginorio

Limington

Ludlow Street suffers from Little League fans’ cars 

My house is across the street from the Deering Little League Field on Ludlow Street. During much of the year, it is very pleasant as there is a pond that allows us beautiful views of the changing seasons.

However, every year during spring Little League season and into the summer All-Star events, we often have to contend with people who park too close to our driveway (I have a photo of a car about 6 inches over the end of the drive) or so close to corners and intersections that it is difficult to see when turning onto Ludlow Street.

People drive fast down our street with little regard for the people crossing (with no crosswalks) to get to the various fields.

This year people are also driving up the small road to the field and parking directly on the grass. I am sure that these are very nice people who would never think of parking on their own or someone else’s lawn, yet they are thoughtlessly parking on the grass in what is essentially a city park instead of walking the extra few feet.

Parking is of particular concern as this area is part of the Portland watershed, with a small runoff pond next to the field. Right now the pond has no real amount of water in it due to the dry season.

But when it does rain it is full of water that runs into the cove and therefore the grass around it is important to the health of the pond.

I have called and written to the City Council, the parks department and police over the years about parking and speed, to no avail.

I only hope that this letter might encourage people to think about where they park and how fast they go down Ludlow Street.

Suzanne D’Bourget

Portland

State policies on water, parties raise questions

The state geologist indicated on Monday’s Opinion page that the clean drinkable water extracted from Maine by an international company (parent of Poland Spring) is negligible.

If that’s the case, why was there a $10 million bond referendum in the May primary that would come out of Maine taxpayers’ pockets for the purpose of cleaning Maine waters for Mainers’ use? Shouldn’t we keep and re-direct the “clean, drinkable” water that is available to us for free?

What’s wrong with this picture?

And while we’re on the subject of the election, it seems strange that there’s no official Independent Party in the state of Maine (we tried to join but were only offered “unenrolled” status), yet three new “independent” candidates appeared the day after the primary. Another strange picture.

Louise Haggett

Freeport