What is the Buddhist Channel's editorial policy?

by E.W. Silke, UK, The Buddhist Channel, June 23, 2007

I have been a long term fan of your excellent and informative website, but recently I have noticed a marked degeneration in content. I expect to see articles on entirely happy subjects; school children in Nepal, educational projects, Buddhist viewpoints on world affairs, and so forth.

Criticizing others, no matter how grave their failings is not buddhism. I understand that you feel the need to include the spice of controversy, to encourage constructive debate and so forth, but in my humble opinion you have gone too far.

This Scottish fellow, who in my opinion has the misfortune of either mental health issues or more likely 'negative influences' is not the issue, I have seen buddhist crusaders in the past and they always fall due to the fact that you cannot fight fire with fire, regardless of how noble the cause. In the words of Dza Patrul 'It is not the faults of others but rather ones own faults arising like refections in a mirror'. Obviously in criticizing your editorial policy I am guilty of intellectual pride, contentiousness and a hundred other failings, but it has to be said...once.

If you print dark, unhappy news, how can you expect readers to be happy since happiness flows only from happiness. There are only two expressions to be seen on the faces of great buddhist leaders; grave concern and sympathy for others or else pure happiness. Righteous anger, crusading zeal and so forth are not to be seen, since they act as a cause for the degeneration of virtue.

Furthermore why do you persist in printing articles from very disturbed people, and in the process inflaming readers, this is definately a twisted way of thinking. You must filter some of these articles to avoid offense, it is not for you to decide whether some cages need rattling! The result will be increasing personal derangement for you, and also a massive loss of readership.

The gentleman with AIDS is a case in point, he deserves a personal letter of sympathy in reply, not the printing of his complete letter which is entire nonsense, even verging on slander. The poor man is consumed with anger and grief so his judgement is severely impaired, can you not discern this fact yourself?

Your decision to include a letter by a Hindu fundamentalist was another example; it was offensive to Dalit Buddhists so what was your purpose in including it? I know full well that samsara is a dark and troublesome place, and I do not logon to your site to dwell unhealthily on this fact.

Please could we have happy content thank you.