Replies

The thing that is most perplexing, as many others have noted, is that so many papers published THIS particular email. It is the papers that have MORE explaining to do than the sender of the email. Everyone gets spammed. All campaigns, both sides, do form letters of one sort or another. What is odd is that so many papers chose this ONE email. I am not saying that there isn’t value as to who sent it. I am saying that there is more value as to WHY so many papers chose to publish this particular person’s email.
I think we are looking at an “or else” presidency and a lot of papers seem to have gotten the “or else” message.

I wonder what all the newspapers have in common? same owner maybe?

The thing that is most perplexing, as many others have noted, is that so many papers published THIS particular email. It is the papers that have MORE explaining to do than the sender of the email. Everyone gets spammed. All campaigns, both sides, do form letters of one sort or another. What is odd is that so many papers chose this ONE email. I am not saying that there isn’t value as to who sent it. I am saying that there is more value as to WHY so many papers chose to publish this particular person’s email. I think we are looking at an “or else” presidency and a lot of papers seem to have gotten the “or else” message.

EXACTLY!!!

Hard to imagine that Washington Times is on the list, a very conservative newspaper. What would be the “or else” with that paper? People have already mentioned how hard it is to get a letter in the newspaper. Why did this letter make it with so many papers, avoiding the normal confirmation procedures and protocols, is a mystery. Maybe some interviews with these paper’s editors are needed to get to the bottom of this story.

The thing that is most perplexing, as many others have noted, is that so many papers published THIS particular email. It is the papers that have MORE explaining to do than the sender of the email. Everyone gets spammed. All campaigns, both sides, do form letters of one sort or another. What is odd is that so many papers chose this ONE email.

It's not so odd that so many papers published the letter (you have no idea how many more were sent out to papers that didn't publish it.)

Ellie Light sent the same letter with different cities that corresponded to the coverage area of the target newspaper. Usually the op-ed editor or a clerk will call the person to make sure they did indeed send the letter before they publish it.

That's what's so odd about this email - what phone number did Ellie Light use? Or did the papers even bother to verify that Ellie Light sent the email?

I can see some papers with the lack of staff just skipping over the verification and printing it. But all those papers?

And of course we'll never know how many papers didn't print it because they couldn't confirm that Ellie Light even existed.