Question: I am a concerned citizen supporting fluoride. I have sent letters that have been published, however, I have several friends and acquaintances that have sent letters regarding the benefits of fluoride and you choose not to print those. I have seen too many anti-fluoride letters that are pure garbage compared to very few pro-fluoride letters. Why aren’t the pro-fluoride people getting equal space? I am a retired health care administrator, I believe in medical science. I don’t believe in junk science. You have been printing junk science. — Joyce McNamee, Spokane Answer: All letters are held to the same criteria, regardless of ideological point of view. Among those criteria are length, frequency and the presence of a signature and other information necessary for the verification process. Anyone who has submitted a letter and is concerned that it has not been processed should inquire directly by phoning me at 459-5466 or e-mailing me at dougf@spokesman.com. — Doug Floyd, editorial page editor

Where were the protest pictures?

Question: Would you please tell me why the paper (and the TV newsmen to a lesser extent) plainly avoided pictures of the protesters at the Bush rally? Is it just plain political preference on the publisher’s part? Or are they afraid to go against the administration? Or what? It certainly didn’t seem like they were covering the news, as it really was. — Doris Gerhart Answer: I think we’ve already addressed this to a certain extent. Our goal during the president’s visit was to cover the visit. Protests against the president and demonstrations in his favor were part of the event and were fully covered in our stories. But we didn’t provide much photo coverage of either side. That is, in part, because the protests were peripheral to the major news event. But it’s also true that, in general, we cover protests sparingly. Protests are, by their nature, media events. They rarely advance an issue or contribute new thinking to a problem. They are staged to attract media attention and win photo or broadcast coverage. That’s a game we try to avoid playing. A group will not be assured of news coverage simply by holding a rally. And the numbers game, played by all sides, is not part of our thinking. It doesn’t much matter that the opponents had 25 percent more than the supporters. To win coverage beyond the most basic acknowledgment (for the historical record), something has to be said that moves the news forward. Now, some will argue the president’s entire visit was a media event that failed to advance any issue. That may be true. But it doesn’t really matter. The president is always newsworthy, regardless of party or politics. I don’t think that’s an argument too many people can dispute. As to publisher preference and the internal politics of the newsroom, I have no clue what the publisher’s preferences might be in the upcoming election. We haven’t talked about that yet. And the publisher plays no role whatsoever in daily news decisions. No editor, reporter or photographer, including me, ever discussed the president’s visit or our coverage with the publisher. As dialogue on this page has shown over and over, political bias is more often than not in the eye of the beholder. — Steve Smith, editor