To the editor:

(Call Executive Editor Mike) Anthony’s July 28 Opinions column pontificates from on high to all of us about our elected officials’ responsibility to always be truthful.

Everyone agrees that all of us should be truthful; however, I find the act of misleading readers through spinning, distorting and omitting facts together with confusing the truth equally villainous.

I’d fight for Anthony’s right to have and express his opinion in this great country, but reporters also have a critically important public responsibility to truth. They should consciously make every effort to report the facts wholly, accurately and truthfully when writing outside of their opinions column.

Recently I found it disturbing that Anthony clouded the Charter Commission Sunshine debate. Instead of reporting on the fact that folks were upset about the commission’s formation without proper public awareness, Anthony confused the true issue and twisted the focus onto the appointment of members.

While the appointments question may be challenged, establishing the commission in the first place was their true concern.

When the city wanted to create the Economic Development Commission officials announced it from the rooftops first.

Like Anthony, we the people are watching officials, but we’re watching reporters too. Let he who is without spin cast the first stone.

Roger Anderson

Crestwood

Editor’s note: We’re disappointed at Mr. Anderson’s attempt to become a “spinmeister.” Given the fact that he could find no errors or inaccuracies in our July 21 news account of the Crestwood Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility’s allegations about the appointments to the Charter Commission, it’s disturbing that he would resort to accusing the Call of spinning the news. We believe letter writers are entitled to their opinions, but they should make every effort to state facts wholly, accurately and truthfully. In this case, Mr. Anderson omits the fact that the Call’s July 21 article devoted more space to the allegations raised by the citizens’ group than any other published account. We welcome Mr. Anderson’s scrutiny. We question whether he would welcome the same scrutiny.