Daily PUBLIC editor censors critics

The Daily public editor is supposed to be a sort of ombudsman, designed to help people look at unfair articles, bias, conjecture and have a chance to be heard. The comment section underneath the article is open to all, and is a democratizing element. Unfortunately, the Daily views its public editor role differently than I view it. Here he is policeman, not public defender; he wants to quash the comments, not publish them or look at the Daily itself. Here is an example:

" As (editor in chief) Hohmann points out, the primary focus of The Daily staff is on the paper itself, not its Web site, and so it should be. It’s fine if it takes awhile for The Daily to come up with a good solution for allowing comments. The status quo, however, is an embarrassment. As a temporary measure, The Daily should remove its commenting system."

I would add that HIS JOB should have its primary focus on the paper itself, not the website. As a frequent commenter in the Stanford Daily who has been censored repeatedly for having views that differ from the editors' UNSIGNED editorials , and who has been censured by other editorials and letters on those rare occassions I have been published, I believe the public editor is trying to quash diverse viewpoints. Not only is this wrong, it is dangerous. Again, the comments on the article are better than the article, and nearly all criticize the editorial. Without the comment section, his overbearing editorial would have "stood."