Colson article didn’t need sensationalism

I was saddened to read about Chuck Colson's death.

But it was the garbage “story” the Los Angeles Times put out and the lack of editorial dignity provided by The Gazette that was the most saddening.

The last two paragraphs were especially troubling: “unlike the Pat Robertsons or Jerry Falwells of the evangelical movement, Colson never sought the limelight.” Um, exactly how many Robertsons or Falwells are there?

Does the L.A. Times have authority over the Christian church to deem Colson's conversion “genuine” or to name those who should or should not be well-recognized? I could only think of six evangelical leaders by name. Can you name even six? And is being well-known a sin?

Quote, “Unlike some others in his world, he ... never amassed great personal wealth.” So now the L.A. Times defines wealth and those who should enjoy it? Who are the “others in his world” who have amassed great wealth? Again, can you name even six?

Colson served time for his Watergate crimes. He also headed up the successful, well-respected and compassionate Prison Fellowship Ministry. For that he should be honored, especially in death.

It seems the Times could find no wrongdoing so they had to create their own negative comparisons. Will Billy Graham's and Al Sharpton's salaries be posted upon their deaths?

The Gazette should have had the wisdom to cut the last two paragraphs as they were more sensational “bashing” than true news.

Wendy Hartman

Cedar Rapids