 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Most editors would publish ‘reprehensible’ letter Chuck Brown, editor of the St. Croix Courier in New Brunswick, had a Hotline question for the ISWNE membership on June 12, 2009. Within a day or two, Chuck had 55 responses, most of which are reprinted here. Here’s Chuck’s Hotline question: Would you publish this letter? “The background is fairly simple — we ran a story about a local high staff raising a rainbow-coloured flag in front of the school. Events were aimed at publicly showing that the school’s students and staff will not tolerate bullying or harassment. “The following letter came in response and we wrestled with whether to publish it. I’d love to hear some other opinions.” Gay is not okay (from Rod McLean) “Regarding the article in Tuesday’s paper, May
26, 2009, on A-2, ‘SJDA “Gay is not okay, when teachers, church leaders, and others say that it's okay to be gay, they are doing a major disservice to these unfortunate young folks that hear them. What possible good could come from encouraging a young person to pursue a gay lifestyle if they felt so inclined? “The very word ‘gay’ and the rainbow symbol itself have been hijacked by these groups to gloss over and cover up what it really is, unnatural, perverted acts between two persons of the same sex. The reason for this event at SJDA, was not so much about bullying as it was about taking the opportunity to shove this in the public's face once again with the never-ending demand for respect and tolerance. What is there to respect? The staff at SJDA, who promote this nonsense, should be ashamed.” ******* Here are the ISWNE responses to Chuck Brown’s Hotline question, in the order they were received: “If you do publish it I would recommend being transparent about your thought process. In other words let the readers know you were conflicted, asked for advice — you could even write an editorial about it, ask readers how they would have handled it, put a poll question on your web site, etc. Make it a teachable moment, if you will.” Josh Cutler “I would publish the letter — first, so as not to have the newspaper publish only letters with which it agrees, and second, to let readers know the views of some people in their community. The writer, while expressing some pretty reprehensible thoughts, is not advocating violence or illegal activities.” Leslie
O’Donnell “I don’t think I would run that letter. First of all, it’s not local, so you have less of mandate to run it. It’s from Saint John, which isn’t really your readership, I would think. “Second, it’s really misinformed. The only way I would run it would be to write an edit about the issue and specifically mention the letter and its rather archaic beliefs. However, that might come back to bite you, since you would basically be taking a letter writer to task, which might not entice other letter writers to feel good about writing letters to your paper. Bottom line — delete.” Gisele McKnight “Wow! I thought I had problems. I would take this up with my legal advisor before I ran it. Though it doesn’t seem all that bad, you are bound to get a lot of response, and some of it will not be printable. At least, the writer is willing to sign his name, but I’d check references carefully. Last election year, I had a letter from a little old lady very critical of our incumbent sheriff. Turns out the little old lady did not exist. Just be very careful. To not let this side be heard is as bad as not letting the other side be heard. But I’m not in your shoes. You’re the one who will have to make the call.” Paula Barnett “In our newspaper we have always had a policy that we do not print letters that are libellous, racist, sexist or homophobic. We have made that clear and have never had anyone try to submit something that goes over the line. “As you know, Canada has hate crimes legislation that makes it a crime to promote hatred against any identifiable group, but our motivation in preventing publication of anything racist, sexist or homophobic isn’t just to comply with the law, but to respect the dignity of all of our readers. No one deserves to see a hateful attack against themselves or their lifestyle, ethnicity, or gender in their newspaper.” Kevin Weedmark “I would publish that letter. The letter is not libelous and while the letter writer seems a bit irate, the writer is not being rude and is not hurling insults. “The High Springs Herald is located in what we call a ‘Bible Belt’ area of Florida, and we have actually published very strong letters and columns where residents and preachers have called being gay acts against God. “We’ve also run letters and columns of people in support of gay rights and of people who believe being gay is genetic. “Chuck, in general, regardless of the topic, if a letter is not libelous and is not hurling personal attacks, then I’m all in favor of letters full of energy. Sometimes, that energy translates into an angry letter to the editor. So be it. That certainly adds energy to your editorial page. “By the same token, we’ve had people submit poetry as their commentary on local issues. We’ve published that, too. “I encourage and welcome the diversity of letters to the editor, even the angry ones. “We need to be a reflection of our communities, and that reflection sometimes includes the views of people not happy with certain situations.” Ronald Dupont Jr. “I think most editors struggle with letters because of an innate sense of guilt. We don’t like using our power as editors to deny someone a voice, especially if we disagree with them. Are we silencing them because we think they are wrong? Doesn’t that make our own action wrong? Isn’t democracy based on a free flow of ideas? “But with our power comes responsibility. The letter writer below doesn’t simply say he disagrees with the event. He calls the people who took part ‘unnatural’ and ‘perverted.’ He attacks the people involved, not just the event. To me, he crosses the line of acceptability. “In the past, I would have edited out the parts that I felt were offensive but that too is an abuse of my power as editor. If I did edit the letter, I’d have to get the changes approved by the letter writer, which will lead to a long debate. Now I simply don’t print such letters. No guilt!” Martha Perkins “I’d run the letter. It doesn’t incite violence or threaten physical harm. It may be an angry, intolerant opinion, but it also undoubtedly represents the views of more than just the writer. By running the letter you help make readers aware that this kind of anger and intolerance exists in the community.” Mo Mehlsak “I’m confused that it says stopping the bullying and harassment was the basis of the story but then says headline was ‘gay is ok’ sends a mixed message of whether the week was about preventing harassment or publicly endorsing ‘gay’ lifestyle. The two can be separate issues — you can agree not to hate and harass without approving of lifestyle choice. That headline, somewhat sensational not seeing the actual story, would suggest to me the letter should run for fairness. Although personally I would hate to because of its message of intolerance.” Joel McNeece “Although I understand the desire to show both sides of an issue, this letter promotes intolerance, even though it is on the other side of the ‘gay rights’ issue. “In Alberta it is illegal to discriminate against someone due to the colour of their skin, religious beliefs, sex, or sexual orientation. Does that not apply across Canada? With that distinction, would you run a letter from someone promoting intolerance to someone of another race or religion? Of course not. “In my opinion, this is the same thing. “The letter writer’s beliefs are his right, but he does not have the right to use the paper as a platform to promote intolerance against gay people.” Kelly Clemmer “Run the letter? Of course. Without question. “Sexual preference, with all its attendant social and political ramifications, is a bonified public issue that newspapers can’t responsibly avoid in their news, editorial and letters columns. “This, of course, does not include hateful commentary, but just being a sensitive subject that is sure rile readers is not a sufficient reason to refuse to publish the letter.” William F. Schanen III “Yes, definitely run the letter. “The issue is not whether one agrees with the sentiments expressed in the letter (personally, I don’t). Rather, the person is expressing an opinion about a public issue, the letter is not libelous and does not slander an individual. “The newspaper is being used by the letter writer as a forum, which is what a newspaper should be. The views expressed will probably generate additional letters — for and against the issue — which strengthens the civic engagement of people and, hopefully, will cause people to think. Perhaps, getting the bigotry out there in the open will even bring some people to speak against bigotry — and others to change their views.” Ross Connelly “I ran into this problem a lot back in the late ’90s, when I was editorial page editor at a mid-sized daily. The local school board was debating adding the words ‘sexual orientation’ to its non-discrimination policy, and that brought a lot of gay-bashers out of the woodwork and into the letters forum. “I discussed the issue with my publisher and my editor, who were reluctant to publish such letters, but after several hours of contemplation, they agreed with me that we were morally obligated to publish such letters, on these grounds: “1. First, such sentiments are held by a number of people in our communities, and as such publishing their opinions reminds the community that such sentiments are held by neighbors, co-workers, etc. Rejecting such letters only hides the truth from the community, that such sentiments exist. “2. Second, because the opinions were sparked by a public declaration, it would be improper for us to not publish contrasting opinions on the matter, no matter how much we, personally, disagreed with them. “3. Third, we had a commitment to publish as many letters as possible from local people on local issues. We felt it would have been hypocritical for us to not publish anti-gay letters from local residents that were inspired by local issues. “4. And, finally, we recognized that the gay-rights issue is the emerging civil-rights issue of our time, and that just as many of our professional forebears in the 1950s and 60s, who favored desegregation, gritted their teeth and published racist letters, we felt that we needed to do the same. “Of course, our community was a college town, where vigorous debate on big issues was very much part of the local culture. But surprisingly, we got a lot of angry responses ‘not for publication’ for printing anti-gay letters. We encouraged them to allow us to publish their comments, but they didn’t want to. But in my mind, running the controversial letters prompted serious debate in the community, whether on our pages or not.” Bill Reader “I’d run it. It is signed, expresses opposition to an event and is the writer’s belief.” Mike Lindsey “As a believer in Voltaire’s famous quote ‘I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ I would have no qualms about running this letter. It reflects a legitimate (albeit misguided and pigheaded) view regarding homosexuality and is a view that many people sadly share. If we censor letters because we feel the views expressed are incorrect then we have become what we fight against. Stifling an opinion is never a good idea. Let the letter run. Let it be clear on the editorial pages that the letters do not reflect the views of the paper or its management. Let it spur other letters and let the debate be held, but be ready to cut the debate off if it resorts to personal attacks or repetition.” Brian Wilson “I appreciate the sensitive nature of this debate. “In general, I feel that the role of newspapers is to foster debate. No doubt, printing this letter would prompt many replies. “If a letter is not libelous (and I am not familiar with Canadian law) and there are no other mitigating factors, I try to print all local letters, even those of opposing viewpoints. “The point of a free press is to defend the right to express opinions, even those the newspaper may disagree with. In actual practice, not all readers grasp this concept which can result in rifts in the reader-newspaper relationship. I think it is always wise to review letters on a case-by-case basis.” Julie Boren “Editors have to watch out for libel and make sure facts are correct when publishing letters to the editor. “But the limit on publishing or suppressing angry opinions is a little fuzzier. “I don't think there’s anything in this letter that most of us haven’t heard before. Actually, for an anti-gay letter, it seems pretty mild. “One thing to consider is that students might deserve a little extra shielding from hateful people in the community. “At the same time, by making a public statement about a cause, you open yourself up to public comment more than if you were just going about your life privately (although it’s unclear from this description if the students had a say in making this public statement or if that was the staff’s decision and the students were caught up in it). “This letter does not strike me as too shocking to print. “It’s important for a newspaper to print as many views from the community about topics as it can, whether the views are popular or not. “Where I used to work, a rally like this might generate a lot of letters — pro and con. Were there also letters in support of this statement? If so, this wouldn’t be the only public reaction to the statement, if that's something you were worried about. “Another thought that popped into my head, as I started thinking more about the volume of mail: Some editors might think it’s OK to print one letter from each side of an issue to be fair. That might work for op/ed pieces, but I’d be leery of doing that for letters to the editor. It can be misleading. If there were 10 letters opposed and two letters in favor, I’d try to show that in the letters section by using either all of the letters or a sample that represents both the views and the number of people who expressed those views. “In the future, if you want to set a high bar for discourse, it’s good to let the public know that ahead of time. Just like the notices we use to keep people who post at our web sites in line, we should give a general guideline for what we’ll accept in letters for the newspaper. It has to be somewhat broad — i.e., "At the editor’s discretion, letters that contain personal attacks or nasty language might not be published” — and you have to be careful not to limit comments just because they’re unpleasant or the opposite of the newspaper’s views.” Andy Schotz “Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t a paper publish it? It expresses a reader’s opinion and it doesn’t libel anyone; there are no legal issues here that I can see. It shouldn’t matter that the opinion is distasteful to some or that some people think it is the wrong opinion. Papers have to uphold the right of people to express their opinions over a spectrum on any particular issue, as well as on a wide range of issues. If the person who wrote this is signing his name to it, I would not hesitate to publish it.” Laura Walz “The first question would be whether Saint John is in your coverage area or not. It’s possible, as we’ve seen before, that someone in a distant community scans the Internet for keywords in letters to the editor to rebut spouting their propaganda. If he has a genuine connection to your community then it’s time to consider the actual content of the letter. “In that case, I’d probably print the letter because it provides a different opinion of the issue, one that’s probably held by a number of your readers. This is an issue that will always generate a lot of controversy, but suppressing the opinions from one side is not beneficial to the newspaper or its goal of promoting reasoned discussion on both sides of issues and encouraging dialogue through letters. “I’d also be prepared for a lot of responses on both sides, and plan to call a halt to the exchange after two or three weeks. “We had an issue in our community within the past month where we were bombarded by letters on a local issue and had to do just that because most of the letters were becoming repetitive. The statement we used was: ‘We believe this issue has received extensive coverage over the past few weeks, with a variety of differing opinions put forth through our Letters to the Editor column. Therefore we won’t be accepting any more letters on this matter unless there is something substantively different from the ideas contained in the letters which have already been printed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.’ “As it happened, there was something substantive and we ended up with another two weeks worth of letters before putting a second halt to discussion of the issue, but that's another story.” Steve Dills “I would run the letter. The community should know who the nuts are and controversy is part of publishing a weekly, or daily, newspaper.” Charley Wallace “I disagree with the letter’s premise and with the tone of his description of gay being a perverted act. But I would run the letter. We have a wide range of political and religious views espoused in our paper. Often I disagree with the tone and the message but we generally run them. I’m often ready to answer them with editor’s notes (though I am the publisher so I guess they would be publisher's notes) not only to try to correct their mis-statements but also to ask for writers to discuss issues and not resort to name calling and personal attacks. “You won’t stop the views of people like this and there are many more who share those views. And there are many who disagree who may respond with more articulate and thoughtful letters. I don’t know your community, you do which may be why you hesitate to print the letter.” Elliott Freireich “By all means publish the letter. The purpose of our opinion pages is to present a diversity of opinion — whether we agree with it our not. The concept of tolerance should apply to all viewpoints. I think we hamstring free speech when we start picking and choosing the viewpoints we want to air. If the subject were not so emotionally charged, you wouldn’t think twice about airing a different point of view, would you? “I’m curious, if you decline to publish it, what reason will you give? “I’d appreciate knowing how you resolve this.” Lori Evans “I would publish the letter, foaming at the mouth though
it may be. I disagree strongly with the writer’s views,
but I do not think it is the newspaper’s place to censor
views that are politically incorrect or distasteful. You published
an article about an anti-homophobic event, and this is the
other face of the issue. The writer is entitled to his views,
repugnant as they may be — and people like him are out there.
If you kill it, you enable him to go around saying your newspaper
is biased, unbalanced and cowardly. His language was not offensive
(just his views, in my opinion), and he is a member of your
reading public. Richard McCord “I would run the letter. It is not personally abusive, and I would not describe it as ‘hate mail.’ The issue is widely debated with clearly differing points of view, and this viewpoint is no doubt shared by a number of others in the community. The letters column should be, with very few exceptions, an open forum where debate is encouraged. “I recall when our church held an adult ed class on the Bible and homosexuality, which I helped organize. The leaders had a definite point of view (liberal, with which I agreed), and we were justifiably criticized for not encouraging expression of other, more conservative views. “I would hope that your standard letters policy requires writers to sign their names for publication, so that Rod’s name will appear with his letter.” Garrett Ray “Certainly. The letter is not libelous (by U.S. standards, anyway). It is not in poor taste (as in its tone or use of foul language); it is an expression of opinion, whether or not it fits your level of political correctness. “A letter like this should serve as a springboard (or ignition point) for a lively community discussion via letters to the editor. It will surely generate discussion in the community at the coffee shop or around the water cooler. “Whether you agree with the letter writer, he (in this case) has expressed his opinion and is as entitled to a public forum for that as the person who believes pit bulls are a menace to society and should be outlawed. You will find there are many folks on both sides of the question who will want to air their views. “On another angle, if you hold back on publishing such a letter as this, you risk gaining the reputation as ‘that paper that only prints what agrees with them.’ For a community newspaper, that can be a serious handicap. “Additionally (I’m on a roll, Chuck), should this generate lots of letters from your readers, especially if there is distinctly varied response, you may find that you have and opportunity/obligation to step forward as a newspaper and editorialize on the topic, perhaps commenting on the original purpose of the anti-homophobic rally or on the need for additional open dialog on the entire topic. “Go for it, man!” Dick Crockford “Yes, I would, given the news coverage. It’s a subject open to fair comment, and discussion — and you may get a firestorm. “But it’s on the public plate, as your news story shows.” Brad Martin “Yes. I personally object to like the writer’s opinions, but you can’t change an opinion by refusing to let it be heard. There’s a fine line between misguided opinions, which I believe this is, and out-and-out hatred. Here in Kansas we have a church, Westboro Baptist, that routinely spews the most vile homophobic venom imaginable. I would never run that stuff, but this isn’t hate as much as it is opinion. While I might disagree with an opinion, no opinion is so wrong that we can’t learn something by hearing it or that we can’t help change by bringing it into the light of day.” Marion County Record “I’d publish it as long as the writer is sincere.
I’d check it was legit first, but people are entitled
to their views, and think of next week’s letters page!” “While this letter writer’s opinion may not be
my opinion and may not even represent a majority in your readership
area, it is an ably expressed opinion — nothing libelous or
in poor taste to my mind, although some may worry about the
term ‘perverted’ — this is Mr. McLean’s opinion
of the event and it IS an Opinion Page. “I think I would run the letter. Although I don’t agree with the writer, he has a right to his opinion.” Clyde Wills “On the basis that this is or at list is couched as a response to an article published in your paper there is obviously and argument that it should be considered appropriate for publication. The counter argument might be that on the face of it, the letter may be offensive to more enlightened readers, even abhorrent to some and an appropriate publishers code might be used as a reason not to publish. “However, it occurs to me that the letter pulls up short of crossing the line of vilification. “In short either decision is defensible as would be a decision to editors note the published letter (Not preferred) or to break it out to publish together with a Editorial comment explaining both the thinking applied to the decision to publish and restating the Editor & Publishers’ view on tolerance within the community. “Not sure that helps but would be rapt to be kept in the loop on where you get to in your publishing decision.” Matt Jenkins “I
would publish the letter. The writer is simply stating his
opinion, and not advocating violence, bullying, or harassment
in any form. He seems to be sane, also, and presumably then
understands there may be consequences to writing the letter
and is willing to accept them. Regardless of the outcome, his
right to express that opinion is the protected right of an
American citizen and should be respected by the newspaper.” “I would run the letter. It fulfills what I see as the primary requirements for a letter to the editor: That space, I believe, belongs to the readers, and it’s the readers’ opportunity to have a voice, and to give an opposing view to what we've printed in the paper. “As long as the letter is not inciting violence (which I don’t think it is) and is not libelous (which I don’t see any evidence of), why not give the opposing view a chance to express themselves? Isn’t that what free speech is all about? “I would, however, discuss it with the letter writer and be sure he or she understands that their words will be out there for all to see, and that there might be repercussions.” Janet Manko “In response to your question about whether to publish this letter, I answer not as a newspaperman but as a reader. I would love to see this letter appear in my local paper, not because I agree with its sentiment but because every reader should be familiar with the phrase ‘never-ending demand for respect and tolerance.’ Tolerance is so tiring; let’s bring back bludgeoning when we disagree. Oh, right, that’s what the events reported on were all about. “Also I would choose to publish the letter because it is not a religion-based screed but a reasonably well-stated objection to something happening at a publicly-funded institution, which is also related to the bigger picture of marriage law changes making national news, at least here in the lower 48. This is an issue that needs airing at a local level.” Tom Wills “You can’t win, and you are not going to be the deciding factor in the gay vs. straight debate in this world today. But you have given the school publicity ion its point of view and I see no reason why you can’t run this letter. You might get flak, but so what? This is this person’s opinion and it is the paper’s role in society to promote open discussions in the community. My guess is that this letter might get you two or three pro- and anti-gay letters. Run them and let the discussion run its course. Little good can be done by hiding the issue under a rock.” Ray Laakaniemi “Well first off I have to be honest and ask what is wrong with the letter? Why have a problem publishing it? Sense you stated that you already carried a pro-homosexual article. Makes me think that you missed the other view and this dear reader is pointing that out. “In Iowa City where I grew up we had that daily liberal or the out of town daily conservative papers....guess which one my family bought? But that is not the point. If any paper, daily or weekly is good, they will present both sides or the multi-sides of the issue. If it were me I would run the dear editor letter and follow it up with other sides of the coin, religious, school, students, family, politically, etc. “Again, I have not seen your story and only seeing the letter but the only conclusion I can get from it is there is more happening then what was reported. Print the letter and follow up on more sides to the story. You could interview the politicians in your area, along with all the different religious leaders in your area, school, students, parents, etc. You could have a different side in each issue and follow up letters side by side. It will bring to the surface problems in the area and educate the readers, maybe lead to an NIE special issue.” Gretchen Daniels “The letter is bigoted and offensive but people are entitled to their opinions, even if they are bigoted and offensive. I would run it so the folks at the school understand there are opposing views out there, as if they probably didn’t already know. Those kind of letters are tough, but necessary to print, I believe. (And I have a gay step-son.)” Robert M. Williams, Jr. “I’d have no problem printing it. It should stir up many more letters, I would guess.” Tim Evans “I think the guy has a right to his opinion and the
right to have the letter published. It isn’t libelous,
doesn’t contain swearing and is written in complete sentences,
so I see no reason to withhold it. (You might run an editorial
on the same page voicing the opposite point of view.) “I had a similar situation once while managing a paper in Nebraska. I ran the letter…and I would run this one. I would expect the SJDA will receive many responses to Mr. McLean’s letter — both agreeing and disagreeing, thus starting a real public debate on the issue. That, in my opinion, is what the Letter to the Editor column and the editorial page are for.” Jon Flatland “The letter indeed is strong and not totally unexpected given the emotional nature of the subject. I’d be hard pressed, however, to reject the letter in its entirety. The newspaper did invite the forum by virtue of covering the event. And you might well be fielding equally strong letters by individuals who supported the rally. “That said, I believe the newspaper has a responsibility to keep the exchange civil. That can be done without squelching the debate. From my perspective, the most objectionable language in the letter is the phrase ‘unnatural, perverted acts’ in the sentence below. “The very word ‘gay’ and the rainbow symbol itself have been hijacked by these groups to gloss over and cover up what it really is, unnatural, perverted acts between two persons of the same sex. “I believe you could eliminate that sentence completely and the point of the letter would remain intact. Of course, you’d want to first approach the author with your suggested edit. “Beyond that, I’d write a column to your readers explaining that for purposes of this debate, the newspaper is implementing certain ground rules — that your intent is to foster the exchange of ideas on a very emotional subject without the writers resorting to name-calling. In other words, you intend writers to be respectful of each other’s ideas in a civil debate. “I wrote a weekly column during my tenure as editor that explained newspaper policies and operations. The goal was not to try to convince readers that a certain policy was the ‘right’ way or the ‘only’ way, but it was to help them better understand our decision-making process. In that regard, such columns go a long way in building and fostering relationships with readers.” Jim Pumarlo |