Feedback from April 18 and Beyond | Letters | Salt Lake City | Salt Lake City Weekly

Feedback from April 18 and Beyond 

Opinionated readers sound off on aspic, civil discourse and that pesky interwebs.

Pin It
click to enlarge news_soapbox1-1.png

Cover story, April 18, Dining Guide
Yes to aspic!

Via Instagram

Aspic is delicious. Totally gets a bad rap because it looks revolting—it's not.
Kate Riser
Via Instagram

My mom made tomato aspic with shrimp and other flotsam every holiday. As kids we were horrified and prayed it wasn't forced onto our plates. It wasn't until I was much older and had moved on from the kids table that I began to understand and appreciate this much maligned of side dishes.
Missy Badberg
Via Instagram

"Hey, let's put together a Dining Guide and make it weird and eclectic ..."
Tee Jay
Via Twitter

I love it! Is there a mail subscription option for us (hopefully temporarily) out-of-towners?
Ranae Zauner
Via Twitter

My aunt read my article and now she wants to give me my grandma's vintage Pyrex.
Amanda Rock
Via Twitter

Naomi Clegg certainly deserves the Ted Scheffler Award for conspicuous food consumption for her article on avocado bread, which may still be an overpriced delight in Salt Lake City, but has ceased to be a coastal obsession. Let's remember that it has been ordered explicitly on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, which says it all. In addition, I would suggest the author try the gluten-free bread at the City Bakery. That loaf, a ripe avocado and some mayonnaise and/or ricotta cheese may satisfy her exquisite food sense; her need to indulge herself; and the importance of not wasting a moment of her precious day for the price of a slice of bread with avocado on it at some rip-off joint. Really, I would leave the food columns to some unpretentious soul like Alex Springer.
Steve Ifshin,
Salt Lake City

News, April 18, "Muddy Polls"
Polls do not work any longer.
Fred A. Schmauch
Via Twitter

Dear Editor:
I understand that my anonymity may result in my words not being published. That's OK, because I want to talk to you. I want to talk to the editor; the journalist; the human being charged with informing the public of what's going on; the person on the front line of our nation's information war. I want to talk to you because I have a request, a request that could (and should) come from any citizen of a democracy in this fake news age:

This election season, ask the powerful, the pundits, and the people to think in plain sight. Last election season, no one was asked to think in plain sight. No one was required to share the thinking behind their viewpoints. Instead, the candidates, expert and the "people on the street" were tapped for sound bites. And, in the absence of a standard for exchanging their views, many of those people kept what they had to say short, nasty and brutish.

The most unfortunate result of this? The public rarely got the information it needed to have actual discussions. For what is there to discuss about an unexplained opinion? You can only agree or disagree with it. Give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Choose the "side" that appears to have your values and distrust those who don't.

How would this not end in civil discord? And what else could this discord lead to than a divided country and a weakened democracy? So, this election season, I ask that you apply a standard to those who wish to give the public their point of view. A common sense standard that allows any person to espouse any viewpoint, while ensuring that the public gets the information it needs to discuss that viewpoint.

A standard that requires people to tell us: What they think the topic is, how they came to view it the way they do and why they're sharing their view with the public. This standard ensures that the public gets the three things it needs to have a discussion:

• they think the topic is so we can discuss their definition of it.

• they came to view it the way they do so we can discuss their reasoning about it, and

• they're sharing their view with the public so we can discuss their intentions for it.

Without this information we can only agree or disagree with their viewpoint, be for it or against it. But with their thinking in plain sight, we have what we need to examine, question and consider their point of view. We have what we need to talk to each other about it. We have what we need for discourse.

But we will only have what we need for discourse if you—editor, journalist and human being—employ this standard. Is a candidate making a promise? Ask them to put it in plain sight. Is an expert weighing in? Put it in plain sight. Is a citizen "just sayin' it like it is?" Plain sight.

If it's a point of view and it's in your paper, put the thinking behind it in plain sight. Any person with an honest viewpoint should welcome questions that help them share their thoughts with the public. Using thinking in plain sight as a standard for exchanging points of view will help honest people to inform us and make it harder for the dishonest to confuse and divide us.
"Convenient Tree"

Silly Rabbits
I'm on to your tricks! I've only recently started to read Salt Lake City Weekly, and I have come to realize that the most interesting articles in the CW Contents (the LDS church's change, the hate crimes bill, Elizabeth Warren, etc.) are only available on And, also, there is no hope that those pieces will be made available to those of us who are internet-challenged. (Having an email account is not the same as being on the net!) Is it possible that, now that I have mentioned this inequity, you will print those pieces and change your policy?
R. Mark Read,
Via email

We encourage you to join the conversation. Sound off across our social media channels as well as on for a chance to be featured in this section.

Pin It


More by City Weekly Readers

Latest in Letters

Readers also liked…

© 2022 Salt Lake City Weekly

Website powered by Foundation