Last week, the Marblehead Current published the latest letter from perhaps the town’s biggest — or at least most vocal — supporters of President Trump.
As has happened when we have published previous missives from that same writer, the Current received criticism. We were already considering using this space to address that criticism. Then immigration agents shot and killed a second American citizen in Minneapolis this past weekend. Now, it seems all the more urgent to do so.
There are some who think that, as a local paper, we should confine our opinion pages to matters of local concern. But as we are sure most realize, it is hard to say just what is “local” anymore. Were he still alive, former House Speaker Tip O’Neil almost certainly would have amended his view, “All politics is local.” These days, it’s closer to the truth to say, “All politics is national.”
The actions of the second Trump administration have been greeted with protest, including within the town’s borders. The Current has covered these protests as news events and provided space on our opinion pages to be used to amplify the message of those protests. We believe we have an obligation to offer the same opportunity to those who disagree with those protests and who are less troubled by the administration’s policies.
Some of our critics mistakenly believe that letter writers, including this particular Trump supporter, are given “carte blanche” to say whatever they want. But that is incorrect.
Despite its small staff, the Current devotes significant time and effort to dialogue with writers over the content of their letters. Our challenge is to adhere to objective, content-neutral standards, regardless of whether we agree with a writer’s point of view.
One of those standards is that letter writers are not allowed to lie. So, for example, a letter writer would not be allowed to say on our pages, “All liberals celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk” because such a statement would be demonstrably false. There are plenty of examples of Democrats who immediately and unequivocally decried Kirk’s killing as a heinous act. Indeed, as far as we can see, that was and remains the prevailing view on “the Left.”
However, because there are notable examples of people publicly celebrating Kirk’s death, too, it is fair game to allow a letter writer to speculate about how pervasive such views might be. We may disagree with his assessment, but it’s not the type of provably false statement that can be easily censored.
Do we think certain letters would be more effective if they were less combative and more respectful of those who hold different points of view? Of course. But generally speaking, we let letter writers themselves decide how best to express their messages. Then, we leave it to our readers to decide how seriously to take those messages.
It is true the Marblehead Current’s letters policy contains a guideline that writers “may” be limited to 500 words. But we routinely waive that guideline. To selectively enforce that limit against a particular writer based on the content of his letter would be to pick a side in a particular debate. The 500-word limit either has to apply to everyone or to no one. We will continue to consider whether stricter enforcement of the word count across the board makes more sense.
We understand that, especially after the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, readers can find it alarming and discomforting to be confronted with evidence that one of their neighbors is something other than revulsed by the Trump administration’s actions. But this particular writer has told the Current that, whenever he is published, he receives calls and even cards in the mail from people thanking him for giving voice to their shared viewpoint.
In the 2024 presidential election, nearly 4,000 Marblehead residents — more than one out of every four who voted (28.7%) — chose Trump-Vance. Perhaps some now have buyer’s remorse, but most have likely become only more entrenched in their support. Such is life in our polarized country, with our media and social media silos.
It seems to us that one of the more important challenges facing local news outlets in such times is whether to exclude Trump supporters from “the conversation.” Doing so would be easier on us, and the numbers suggest it might even be a popular decision. We are just not convinced that it would be the right decision.
Elsewhere on this page, you will see one resident who reacted to the most recent letter of support for President Trump by doing something other than calling on the Current to muzzle that writer. She took a deep breath and wrote a letter of her own. We would encourage you to read it in its entirety.
The writer aptly notes, “The United States has endured and progressed not because one faction dominated, but because competing ideas were debated, tested and constrained by law.”
We will always reflect on whether we are doing what we can to help our nation — and our little corner of it — through turbulent, violent times. But we believe that the way out involves, in part, a renewed commitment to the principles of the First Amendment and those expressed by Justice Louis Brandeis when he wrote of the value of “more speech, not enforced silence.”
Still, we also wholeheartedly endorse the plea in this week’s letter for “more seriousness, more humility, a return to higher standards of responsible public conduct and a renewed commitment to evidence-based debate over accusation.”
We hope all our would-be letter writers take those words to heart.
