Letters: Why is Will Bunch considered a 'reporter'?

Posted: March 14, 2011

IUNDERSTAND that you guys are going through a transition, but I can't understand the continued emphasis on Will Bunch as a "news" reporter on issues that he has a stated bias against.

He rails about the Koch brothers, but doesn't acknowledge he's a paid writer for George Soros (a Koch clone, only liberal instead of libertarian). Will and the Daily News have run no less than two "news stories" forecasting the doom of state labor unions. I would rather wait until Gov. Corbett actually makes a move to that effect or at least have actual facts to back up his and the Daily News cover story. Especially when a prominent Democrat is quoted in the story saying he doesn't believe Corbett will balance the budget on the backs of the working man.

Bunch gets a reaction, but the stereotype of big-city newspapers being extremely biased to the left is proven whenever he writes a political article. The DN has taken a large step back with the continued hit pieces on tea-party members or any conservative who happens to disagree with the liberal/media agenda.

Public-sector unions are a joke to begin with; they weren't created to protect members from unsafe work conditions or child-labor practices, they were created to maximize revenue at the expense of the taxpayers for the benefit of their members.

"Right to work" legislation proves the hypocrisy of the left. The rallying cry of support for the unions rings hollow when the employees in non-right-to-work states are forced to join them.

Liberal = don't worry about thinking for yourself, we know what's good for you.

Jeff Cannon Sr.

Williamstown, N.J.

ONCE again, Will Bunch appears on the news pages with a left-wing take on the day's news, sounding the alarm, in Paul Revere fashion, that "the Kochs are coming, the Kochs are coming."

First, let's be a little more straightforward as to what the so-called union-busting in Wisconsin and the efforts in other states are really about.

Nobody is proposing that unions, per se, be abolished or weakened. The people who support Gov. Scott Walker's efforts, and those of other conservative lawmakers, are simply saying that public workers should not be unionized.

Franklin Roosevelt, the uber-god of liberals, also decried the idea of public workers being permitted to unionize. And has anyone (especially Mr. Bunch) brought up the fact that federal government workers are not permitted to unionize? Why then should state workers be given that privilege?

I don't know of anyone involved in this dispute who is saying that workers in the private sector shouldn't be able to belong to unions.

The idea is simply that workers who are paid with tax dollars and whose mission - supposedly - is to serve the public, should not be forced to join a union and forced to pay dues that are then used as campaign contributions for candidates who support a pro-union, liberal agenda.

It becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. As an aside, workers who choose to work in the public sector and who are paid with tax dollars shouldn't have the ability to go on strike either.

Kyran Connelly

Bensalem

|
|
|
|
|