I received a call yesterday from a reader who wished to voice his displeasure with a letter to the editor that was published recently in our newspaper. It was a letter extremely critical of Barack Obamas candidacy, and has sparked a number of reader comments on this Web site.
The reader was polite the word displeasure actually was spoken, when others that are a little more strong could have been used. The reader felt that this particular letter was full of lies.
And to a certain extent, I agree with the reader.
The problem with letters to the editor is that by their very nature, they are opinions rather than facts. Now, of course, letter writers often write their views as if they were facts. And quite frequently facts they use to back up their own opinions either are flimsy facts or simply another opinion. In a presidential election particularly this presidential election the line between facts and opinions can be so blurred that its no longer visible.
That said, most editors, I think, try to give readers some latitude. In pieces that are clearly published as opinions, as letters to the editor on the Views page are, things can be written that would not be allowed in a news story.
This election, readers have been pushing the envelope far more often than during any of the other three presidential elections Ive experienced as a newspaper editor. That includes 2000.
Im not exaggerating by saying that nearly every letter Ive received lately about the presidential election has straddled that blurry line of appropriateness. Most letters present a challenge of judgment of some sort. Some are tough calls. Others are not.
Heres an example of a letter I received today, which was rejected.
To whom do we entrust the keys to the greatest nation on Earth? On our right is a known war hero, who has dedicated his life to serving our nation.
OK so far.
On our left is a known socialist who has stated his goal is to redistribute the wealth.
Hold on.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there are people who believe Obama is a socialist. Hes not a known socialist, however. Still, its the letter writers opinion, so Id allow it. And, yes, Obama did use the phrase spread the wealth, and people are free to interpret that how they wish.
Lets continue.
This man has associated with persons of such questionable character that he would not pass an FBI background check for security clearance.
No.
A chain e-mail (how many of those have there been the past two years?!) that circulated earlier this month claimed that If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past associations with William Ayers. This claim has been refuted as utterly false by a number of fact-checking sites, including Politifact.com.
So strike that from the letter.
His birth certificate has been questioned.
True. His birth certificate has been questioned, again, usually in chain e-mails. But a real, verifiable birth certificate proves Obama was born in Hawaii. Still, because his statement is factually correct, Id leave it in the letter.
He has refused to release his educational records.
That a claim Id not heard before. So I did a brief Web search, and found a number of sites with a political agendas making this claim, but I found no information either substantiating or refuting the claim. Since the letter writer refers to this as a fact, my judgment is to strike it from the letter.
The choice is clear. Mr. McCain, here are the keys.
The writer has the right to that opinion.
So heres the letter as it would be printed:
To whom do we entrust the keys to the greatest nation on Earth? On our right is a known war hero, who has dedicated his life to serving our nation. On our left is a socialist, who has stated his goal is to redistribute the wealth. His birth certificate has been questioned. The choice is clear. Mr. McCain, here are the keys.
So would you print it?
Mind you, this letter is much shorter than many that are submitted.
With so many judgment calls to make, Im certain Ive been far from perfect in decision-making. So, yes, the displeased reader might have reason to be upset.
Of course, particularly in politics, one mans lie is another mans truth.
Is it Nov. 4 yet?!
The reader was polite the word displeasure actually was spoken, when others that are a little more strong could have been used. The reader felt that this particular letter was full of lies.
And to a certain extent, I agree with the reader.
The problem with letters to the editor is that by their very nature, they are opinions rather than facts. Now, of course, letter writers often write their views as if they were facts. And quite frequently facts they use to back up their own opinions either are flimsy facts or simply another opinion. In a presidential election particularly this presidential election the line between facts and opinions can be so blurred that its no longer visible.
That said, most editors, I think, try to give readers some latitude. In pieces that are clearly published as opinions, as letters to the editor on the Views page are, things can be written that would not be allowed in a news story.
This election, readers have been pushing the envelope far more often than during any of the other three presidential elections Ive experienced as a newspaper editor. That includes 2000.
Im not exaggerating by saying that nearly every letter Ive received lately about the presidential election has straddled that blurry line of appropriateness. Most letters present a challenge of judgment of some sort. Some are tough calls. Others are not.
Heres an example of a letter I received today, which was rejected.
To whom do we entrust the keys to the greatest nation on Earth? On our right is a known war hero, who has dedicated his life to serving our nation.
OK so far.
On our left is a known socialist who has stated his goal is to redistribute the wealth.
Hold on.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there are people who believe Obama is a socialist. Hes not a known socialist, however. Still, its the letter writers opinion, so Id allow it. And, yes, Obama did use the phrase spread the wealth, and people are free to interpret that how they wish.
Lets continue.
This man has associated with persons of such questionable character that he would not pass an FBI background check for security clearance.
No.
A chain e-mail (how many of those have there been the past two years?!) that circulated earlier this month claimed that If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past associations with William Ayers. This claim has been refuted as utterly false by a number of fact-checking sites, including Politifact.com.
So strike that from the letter.
His birth certificate has been questioned.
True. His birth certificate has been questioned, again, usually in chain e-mails. But a real, verifiable birth certificate proves Obama was born in Hawaii. Still, because his statement is factually correct, Id leave it in the letter.
He has refused to release his educational records.
That a claim Id not heard before. So I did a brief Web search, and found a number of sites with a political agendas making this claim, but I found no information either substantiating or refuting the claim. Since the letter writer refers to this as a fact, my judgment is to strike it from the letter.
The choice is clear. Mr. McCain, here are the keys.
The writer has the right to that opinion.
So heres the letter as it would be printed:
To whom do we entrust the keys to the greatest nation on Earth? On our right is a known war hero, who has dedicated his life to serving our nation. On our left is a socialist, who has stated his goal is to redistribute the wealth. His birth certificate has been questioned. The choice is clear. Mr. McCain, here are the keys.
So would you print it?
Mind you, this letter is much shorter than many that are submitted.
With so many judgment calls to make, Im certain Ive been far from perfect in decision-making. So, yes, the displeased reader might have reason to be upset.
Of course, particularly in politics, one mans lie is another mans truth.
Is it Nov. 4 yet?!
