I'm writing to you because Style Weekly featured two items that displayed a particularly poor judgment on the part of your paper at a crucial political juncture: the one on the mayoral race for Richmond (“Mayoral Matchmaker,” Cover Story, Oct. 22) and the Word & Image feature against Barack Obama (“Tanith Davidson,” Oct. 22).
At a time when we need concrete and mature reporting with solid information, you included instead an adolescent-sounding dating test for the mayors with information as irrelevant as how they take their coffee and how a date with them would be. I fail to see the relevance or the worthiness of such approach.
Then the Word & Image feature, instead of featuring a Republican who was actually informed on the campaign and the candidates, featured the falsehoods and clichAcs of an ignorant and slanderous young woman.
How did either of these articles serve the mission of informing your readership? These articles would be fine in a magazine for adolescents but not in a paper like yours. I actually look to it for alternative information on local issues and the issue was very disappointing.
Maribel Moheno
Richmond