Conscious Choice: Readers Respond to Anti-War Coverage

August 2003 | Editor’s Note

Readers Respond to Anti-War Coverage

We asked you, our readers, to weigh in with your thoughts regarding last month’s criticism of Conscious Choice’s coverage of the war against Iraq and its post-war implications, and weigh in you did! By more than 2 to 1 you favor our continued coverage of war and politics.

Below is a sampling of your thoughts in response to Marilyn Leidecker’s heartfelt letter to the editor (Editor’s Notes, July 2003) which suggested we should cover only environmental and health related issues. It’s truly gratifying to have readers so invested in the content quality of what they read. Thanks to all who shared their diverse sentiments with us. — Rebecca Ephraim, Editor

I thank Conscious Choice for including anti-war coverage. The war and occupation in Iraq are unjust, and CC is one of the few publications that has the guts to give us the full picture. Thank you for everything you do. — Marianne Merola, Internet

I wholeheartedly agree with Marilyn’s letter to the editor and would like to see the magazine focus on environmental and health issues only, unless these other areas of recent coverage directly relate to the environment and health. The editor made a valid point of how the issues are linked, but that should not be taken to the extreme.

I used to read your magazine on a regular basis until a political article masquerading as a piece about the environment turned me off. I enjoy so much of your magazine, but I’ve been disappointed at how it’s turned into the "Green Party’s Newsletter" lately. I read the most recent issue because I happened to find it on a cafeteria table as I was having lunch. — Greg Wolk, Internet

I applaud Conscious Choice for its independent coverage of the war on Iraq. Promoting non-violence is critical to the future of our world. I look forward to reading CC every month, because it’s the only publication that gives its readers an honest view of the issues. — Sylvia Wilkerson, Chicago

If you stop writing about peace and social-economic issues, most of your readers will stop reading, including me. When I talk to friends about your magazine it’s always about political or environmental issues that you’ve covered. Please get rid of advertisers like the one who wrote telling you not to be political or cover the war. They are not conscious. Thank you for your support in these very scary times. — Steve Adler, Internet

I am completely disgusted with the recent political turn the magazine has taken. I only read your magazine for health related issues, not politics. Because of all the anti-war/Bush propaganda in the magazine recently, I toss them straight into the recycling pile before getting half way through the issues.

In uniformly blasting every policy of the Bush administration the way you do, the rhetoric sounds like a page from the Democratic playbook. I am extremely grateful the Conscious Choice editorial staff is not charged with defending our country. You would probably exhume [English prime minister] Neville Chamberlain and make him Secretary of State. Maybe you would have Clinton go on a world apology tour and explain why the U.S. brought the 9-11 tragedy on themselves by being so evil to the rest of the world during Bush’s first seven months in office.

Get back to your health focus or you will lose even more credibility than you have already. — Steve Ryzner, Internet

Your reply to Marilyn Leidecker’s objection to Conscious Choice’s war coverage was excellent. I hope that you continue to speak out on such urgent issues as war in what you rightly call "historic and dangerous times." — Michael Brennan, Chicago

I believe that Conscious Choice should continue addressing anti-war issues. Holistic living means we cannot segment parts of our lives and merely address environmental and health issues without examining justice.

It is imperative that a responsible media publish facts so that readers may learn where their tax dollars are going and what they are investing in. Considering we have limited resources, do we passively accept national strategies by "oil men" conducted in secret meetings, while they continue to wage war to ensure our oil supply? Do we continue to risk public safely in our food supply by caving into demands of the meat industry? Do we spend our precious tax dollars forcing European markets to accept unlabeled GMOs? Do we reward the wealthy with huge tax breaks while the working poor do without? Those who see inequity and injustice must speak up. — Pam Berns, Chicago

I used to belong to Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union. I quit these organizations for one reason — I thought their missions had been compromised by the strident, polarizing effects of their politics.

This is the point. An organization has a mission. Your mission, at least in my opinion, is to give the readers viable alternatives to "Big Business" Medicine. I would no more expect you to cover a war or the death penalty than I would expect my doctor or my pharmacist to do so.

You obviously realize that your audience is, to put it quaintly, left of center, and articles that make your audience feel good by "Bush bashing" or other such silliness, only manage to turn off those with other political points of view. They then stop reading your magazine and, hence, lose the potential lifesaving health or environment-saving coverage you provide. — Ed Matsuoka, Internet

No, do not stop the anti-war coverage. — Richard Wagner, South Bend, IN

Conscious Choice is doing a great job and I applaud your commitment to stand up and speak out on all issues. As socially responsible people we cannot separate out the issues we will take a stance on and those we will not. It all impacts on the quality of our lives! Perhaps Ms. Leidecker should withdraw her advertising. I for one do not support people who use financial leverage to put their point across.

Keep up your great work and pay no heed to those who try to limit your potential! — Susan McCalla, Madison, WI

I applaud the letter from Marilyn Leidecker. I am a Reiki practitioner and consider myself a spiritual person and, like most people on Planet Earth, I am all for peace. Gregg Braden wrote something to the effect "in the presence of peace, all that can happen is peace." But from where I’m sitting, once someone flies a plane into a building killing thousands of our fellow brothers and sisters, all bets are off.

How then do we re-group to re-establish the peace we had previously been enjoying? Does it make sense to sit there and wait for it to happen again? We are all seeking the same thing — a peaceful life — but we may have different ways of seeing how best to achieve that goal.

When I pick up your magazine, I often feel my point of view is being disrespected. A magazine devoted to a peaceful, holistic lifestyle has no more business espousing a particular political agenda anymore than it does a particular religion. — Name and location withheld by request

Too many people, organizations, and publications are being silenced these days regarding the war and our current administration. I’d hate to see Conscious Choice become one of them because certain businesses threaten to pull their ads. Marilyn Leidecker said it best when she stated, "I’m not so certain I want to be associated with this type of view." She just may have to make the "conscious choice" to part ways with your magazine. Businesses that are in alignment with the ideas expressed in CC will gravitate toward the magazine while others will move on and there’s nothing wrong with that.

I hope CC continues to freely evolve as a publication and attract the type of advertisers who understand and support its mission. — Karen Keeley, Evanston, IL

While I agree that we should be grateful for and mindful of the sacrifices made by those in the Revolutionary, Civil, and World Wars (I and II), we also need to recognize that it’s time to move beyond politically encroaching on other countries in order to protect our current way of life.

Covering the war and the environment seem to me to be complementary segments of a consistent world view. Thanks for expanding the scope of your publication. — Heather Ervin, Internet

No, unequivocally, no, don’t end all war coverage! This most recent edition of Conscious Choice was only the second one I’ve read; I’ve been impressed with your coverage of the issues and assume others feel the same way.

If I turn on TV or open a newspaper, all I see is drivel. I don’t see the media focused on the removal of civil rights, the corruption of our political system, any investigative in-depth inquiries into our criminal justice system, coverage of the collusion of our government with true terrorist organizations, or anything else that I might consider news. I don’t expect CC to be the answer to all of my problems with the media, but I feel as if it’s a step in the right direction. Keep on keepin’ on. — Aaron McManus, Chicago

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: