I read the editorial "Closer look at ad agenda" in the May 7 issue of The Post, and came away totally bewildered. The editorial, dripping with sophistry, seemed to attempt to make several points, all of which were specious at best.

The editorial calls the New York Times' decision not to run tobacco ads a "so called" moral decision, seeming to imply the decision was not moral. Yet, we are left wondering whether that was the editorial's intent. The editorial goes on to state that pulling such ads is a "win-win" situation. The astute reader wonders if "win-win" situations are somehow bad things. The words "public relations move" and "positive public perception" are thrown in. Again the reader asks, are positive public perceptions and public relations bad things somehow? If so, please explain the reasoning behind this conclusion!

More hot-button phrases and words are peppered through the editorial, such as "the Times will be labeled as a wholesome publication that follows through with moral obligations to society." We fail to see, though, from the text of the editorial, whether The Post feels that wholesomeness and following through with moral obligations are good or bad traits. Please tell us how you feel!

The editorial then points out that the Times' decision is an example of "agenda setting." Again, the astute reader is left to wonder if "agenda setting" is good or bad, in the editor's mind. A quick perusal of Webster's Dictionary to look up the word "agenda" does not find anything sinister in the meaning of the word.

Finally, the editorial cautions the public to realize the "hidden purpose." In what? We are left to wonder how any purpose, good public relations, benefiting the newspaper as well as society, etc. constitutes a purpose "hidden."

And we wonder how The Post comes to the conclusion that any purpose or intent by the Times was "hidden." Is there a conspiracy we don't know about somewhere hidden? Please tell us!

John Zyla