Newspaper columnists are paid to write down what they think about various subjects. They are paid to give their opinion. That is why every columnist has a bent, one way or the other. Neutrality is the lack of an opinion, so columnists are never neutral. In other words, they earn a living by writing something that someone of the same bent will enthusiastically agree with and someone of the opposite bent will vehemently disagree with. That sells newspapers and keeps them employed.

I enjoy both sides of a good argument. USA Today, the largest newspaper in the country by circulation, features a subject a day on its editorial pages, giving point and counterpoint. (Maybe that’s why it is so successful.) I respect that.

The great majority of columnists are honest about their leanings, and readily admit they are to the left or the right, and try as hard as they can to convince the reader of the good sense of their position. Fair enough.

Which leads to a laugh I had recently: Reading Froma Harrop’s Oct. 26 column, “McCain’s selection of Palin a fiasco,” I quote: “I was sitting on the fence, as were many centrists . . . Independents like me . . .”

Talk about farcical! She commits the cardinal sin of a columnist: intellectual dishonesty.

She is as centrist as the left foul pole at the ballpark. In other words, she is a phony, writing column after column reporting leftist liberal policies (which I don’t mind as long as you admit that’s what you’re doing) and then trying to convince us she’s right about her positions because she’s an independent centrist. Spare us the charade, Ms. Harrop. The whole point of being a conservative or liberal columnist is to fly whichever banner you espouse and make your point. And you’re certainly not a chameleon. Your banner has never changed color, and trying to convince us of your centrist independence is a banner that simply will not fly.

PAUL A. FONTAINE

Woonsocket