Criticism means we're on the right track

We must be doing something right because people who differ about everything else agree that we're doing something wrong.

In the past few weeks, we've had letters and callers branding us a liberal paper and others calling us a conservative paper. That divergence is a good indicator that we're succeeding at one thing we strive for — presenting you with a wide range of viewpoints.

Our paper as a whole is neither liberal nor conservative, and neither are the editorial and op-ed pages. On the editorial page, we print the views of the editorial board, composed of me, publisher Jeff Green, editorial writer Mick Scott and freelance editorial writers Carl Crothers and Paul O'Connor. We also print your letters and, sometimes at the bottom of the page, local and wire columnists. But we put most of those columns on the op-ed page. Political cartoons go on both pages.

In our editorials, we try to be "common-sense moderates." We don't cater to Democrats, Republicans or any party. We've praised some of the new GOP majority's actions and some of Gov. Bev Perdue's actions, but we've also found much to criticize about both. And longtime readers of the editorial page will know that we praised the old Democratic majority some but also found much to criticize. The crimes of former state House Speaker Jim Black and former Gov. Mike Easley come to mind.

In The Readers' Forum, and in the responses to our new editorial-page features, Scorecard and Sum It Up, we print most of what comes in, as long as it meets certain broad requirements, such as that the writer live in our circulation area, keep it relatively brief and keep it free of words you wouldn't say in front of your mother. And no, there's no conspiracy to print more liberal letters or more conservative ones. We've got principles. And we need to fill up our pages and keep you reading.

We love reader response in letters, Sum It Up and Scorecard. We're working on a new reader-interactive feature for the new year. More on that in the weeks to come.

On our op-ed page, we run columns from local writers as well as ones from syndicated writers. We try to give equal space to the views of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Following Jeff Green's lead, we've added more varied viewpoints to the page, as well as more local guest columnists. Many of our readers have welcomed the changes. A few haven't, whether it's conservatives saying they don't want to read the liberals' columns or vice versa. I tell the critics that it's no fun reading a bunch of writers preaching to each others' choirs. And whether you're to the right of Fox News or to the left of MSNBC, don't you want to know what the other side is thinking? It can be just plain fun.

In the new year, we'll add several Washington Post columnists with different worldviews. But because of continued financial challenges, we'll lose our New York Times columnists, including Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman and David Brooks. I will miss them, too, and apologize in advance.

Filling our pages is a big balancing act, one that comes with significant challenges. Sometimes we just get more conservative responses in letters, Sum It Up and Scorecard than liberal ones. Other times it's vice versa. Sometimes the national columnists and political cartoonists are slow to respond to a major issue, or don't respond at all. Often, those cartoonists and pundits are drawing and writing about much the same thing, couching it in much the same terms: Bad GOP vs. Good Obama or Good GOP vs. Bad Obama, Bad Occupy movement vs. Wronged Moneyed Interests or Good Occupy Movement vs. Evil Moneyed Interests, etc.

Through it all, we keep trying to strike the balance. We know that you, our readers, will continue to let us know how we're doing, right or wrong. And the best way to help us strike that balance is to write us, whether in a letter, guest column, Sum It Up or Scorecard.