Regarding “Foreign election meddling is real, but GOP keeps blocking efforts to stop it” (Oct. 29): The Post-Dispatch again argues against foreign meddling in the U.S. election process. The Editorial Board needs to explicitly define its boundary between free speech — foreign or domestic — and election meddling.
Last April, the Post-Dispatch reported on President Barack Obama openly opposing United Kingdom’s Brexit from the European Union during public appearances in England. The Washington Post, BBC and other reputable news media reported British backlash. The Post-Dispatch never expressed that.
And in September, the Post-Dispatch Editorial Board urged Congress to unilaterally insert itself into the Brexit process. The editorial subheadline read: “Congress can and should introduce sanity into British premier’s Brexit plan.” The Editorial Board openly endorsed withholding approval of a U.S.-British trade pact.
The Editorial Board has postured against fraudulent claims made in foreign postings. In a sense, does the endorsement of Steve Stenger by the Editorial Board constitute endorsement of fraudulent claims?
It appears the Post-Dispatch has no real definition of election meddling. It only argues against particular actions that it does not agree with.
Stuart Clark • Bridgeton