Interacting with media is a strange thing. Interacting with newspapers is an even stranger thing. When you read a newspaper you have on experience per viewing and it does not change. This is fundamentally different from television and radio, which offers a continually renewing landscape that does not allow time to accurately criticize that which has been experienced. This means that there is no criticism of television or radio that lasts beyond the moment (barring exceptions like Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds).So when you read an opinion or editorial that you disagree with, you are free to examine and criticize that which you have experienced. Because of the static nature of newspaper experiences, we as readers, are able to rewind, fast forward, pause or stop that experience all together. You will on average become more enraged and angry after reading a well written op-ed article than you will after watching the worst FOX has to offer. The next problem readers encounter with opinion articles is deceptively simple: they disagree with the content of the article they read, they write an opinion of their own decrying the need to censor or completely omit that which they have read. Still, they can not see the contradiction laid bare before them. Mind you, some of these fools do not even attend UVM. Some do not even live in Burlington.While you may become angry after reading an op-ed article, keep in mind the fundamentally personal infallible nature of opinions including your own. This is why they are opinions. So, be critical of the media in all its manifestations, but understand the medium and how it affects you. And if you no longer attend UVM, concern yourself with something other than the op-ed section of The Cynic.