Takes issue with interpretation of history
Were I to attempt to discuss fracking, it would become apparent immediately that I know nothing about the subject. However, I do know some bit about American History, which is more than I can say for Sarah Fowler. In the first paragraph of her front page article of Sunday, January 13, 2013, entitled “To Frack … or not to frack,” she wrote: “It is easy to make the argument that a hunger for land and an insatiable appetite for the resources it contained were largely responsible for the settling of the North American continent.”
When the English Colonies were first established in the very early years of the 17th century, it is unlikely that the settlers who sought religious and political freedom above all else suffered and sacrificed as they did in order to make land grabs, extract minerals and mistreat Indians.
But even if Ms. Fowler’s views of American History were even partially correct, the big question remains. What do her personal opinions concerning “the settling of the North American continent” have to do with a purportedly objective news article about fracking? Many of us are tired, very tired, of the personal opinions and prejudices of reporters being included in their “reporting” of the “news.”
Ben C. Toledano
Editor’s note: Ms. Fowler was not responsible for that sentence, which was added by an editor. Columbus “discovered” North America on a journey seeking shorter trade routes to the Far East, an exploration fueled by commercial interests. While some of the original settlers came here seeking religious freedom, it’s difficult to argue that the Westward Expansion wasn’t fueled by the hunger for land and desire to extract wealth from the earth in the form of gold, silver, timber and oil. The current boom in Williston, N.D., is part of that same movement, one that is as old as, or rather older than, America, itself.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.