To the editor:

How about some balance when it comes to covering the anti-war protests. I remember last month as you covered those from our local area who were taking the trip to D.C., you had all kinds of coverage of the protesters along with their views and why they don’t support the war and the president. That’s fine. They’re entitled to those views, opinions and their protest, but what I didn’t see was any substantial coverage of those who happen to support the war and the president. Why were their views not included?

You seem to have followed the same pattern again in covering this latest war protest. You opinion columns lean heavily in favor of those who are against the war, especially when it comes to the local letters printed in the Public Forum section.

There’s a big deal made about the 1,000 anti-war, anti-President Bush protesters gathering Saturday in Lawrence. If my math is correct that means that there are still 80,000 other people here in Lawrence and the surrounding areas who aren’t showing up to protest. And every poll indicates that the vast majority of Americans strongly support the removal of Saddam Hussein even if it takes war to do so.

Those who oppose the war are in reality a small but noisy minority, but when you only give them the coverage, it appears as if the movement is much bigger than it is. How about some equal coverage given to the view of the vast majority of Americans who support the war and the president. It’s OK to oil the squeaky wheel, but don’t forget about the other three.

Bill Manley,

Lawrence