Cranky White Feedback

The following is excerpted from this article on the Commonweal site by Mollie Wilson O'Reilly; quoting a letter writer who objected to what he considered excessive (read *any*) coverage of  non-white Catholics in the Archdiocese of New York:
"A trend is accelerating rapidly at Catholic New York: that of blatant favoritism towards Latinos and blacks in the Archdiocese of New York.” That was the opening sentence of a letter published in our diocesan newspaper last December, under the bland heading “Publishing ‘Trend.’” The author’s evidence of favoritism was a handful of recent articles that covered the activities of nonwhite Catholics, as well as a national news item in which a bishop described Hispanic immigrants as “our brothers and sisters.” The letter concluded by asking, “Considering that the majority of issues of CNY over the past few years have published some element of this favoritism, why should any self-respecting white person belong to the Archdiocese of New York?”

Said Ms. Wilson O'Reilly:
"I wrote my own letter to object, and it was published in the next issue, along with two others like it—and another in the issue after that from an Ohio priest who offered a clear-eyed explanation of “racism as a structural, systemic reality.” But it took six weeks for the paper to offer its own response. Up to that point, the letter promoting racism, the one insisting racism is overblown, and the letters denouncing those two were all put forth on equal footing, all perspectives to consider. Is the Catholic Church only for white people? Our readers share their thoughts!"
And:  "The whole episode forced me to ask who Catholic New York is really meant for—all the baptized in the archdiocese, or just the crankier white conservatives?"

The problem of negative and offensive feedback is one faced by all media, especially the online/electronic kind, but also shared by print media in the form of letters to the editor.  The question is, how much and what kind of dissent do they allow to be published?
We subscribe to the St. Anthony Messenger, which is a basically moderate publication.  Without fail in the letters to the editor someone will take them to task for an article which they didn't consider sufficiently adhering to Catholic teaching, or which offended their right-wing political sensibilities.  Into this latter category usually fall arguments about immigrants and refugees. I find these letters tiresome and cringe-inducing. But I respect the publication for printing them, they're not pretending that all they get are positive comments.
I feel that Catholic New York did the right thing in not publishing some of the more egregiously offensive feedback.  But to not let any of the unenlightened and retrograde views through is to encourage denial about the problem. If we don't talk about it we can't address it.  The thing I would have changed is to publish the editorial comment at the time the offensive letter is published, rather than waiting six weeks until all the feedback had come in.