« Another Bush? | Main | On the Wildcat beat »
March 08, 2006
No can publish
We try especially hard to run letters opposing our editorial positions, but here’s an excerpt from one you won’t see published:
“The March 4 article on the child support bill to treat fathers more fairly is one of the best things I have read in the paper all year. I have personally witnessed the court system and how unfair it is to fathers – not only with the money but also with the visitation.
“My fiancé and I went through a custody battle that lasted a year. We had to pay $158 a week for his 4-year-old daughter. Not one cent of that went to his daughter. It all went into her mother’s arm. She is a heroin addict.
“It killed us to pay that much money and see how it was being used. The judge never cared.”
The letter was written by a local woman who gave her name and hometown, as required. But as often happens in letters on divorce and child support in particular, the writer made assertions that characterized people on the other side of a particular case. Although she did not name the person she accused of being a heroin addict, people who know the writer and her fiancé will know whom she is talking about. That makes the letter potentially libelous, meaning the Monitor can’t publish it.
But, you ask, isn’t a letter to the editor an opinion, and isn’t publication of opinion protected by the First Amendment?
I’m not a lawyer, but here’s my answer: Opinion is indeed protected speech, but just because something appears on the Opinion page or is labeled “opinion” does not make it opinion.
Take a look at the excerpt above. When the writer praises the article as the best thing she has read all year, that’s an opinion. When she says the court system is unfair to fathers and the judge never cared, those are opinions.
The letter is not all opinion, however. It includes several statements of fact. Whether they are actually facts, we don’t know. The $158 a week, the daughter’s age – statements of fact. In editing the letters, we don’t have the time or staff to double-check such statements. Unless we see a statement of fact that we know is wrong or that seems outlandish, we give letter writers wide berth.
Readers are smart enough to understand that our accuracy standard is lower for letters than for news stories. The lower standard has the benefit of allowing for a freer public discussion of issues in the letters columns. Letter writers may – and frequently do – correct or question the assertions of other letter writers.
But to say, as this writer did, that not one cent of the child support went to the daughter and that the woman was a heroin addict are also statements of fact, not opinion. And if they are false, they would defame someone who, though unnamed, could be identified.
That is why we can’t publish letter. If the defaming statements were false, both the letter writer and the newspaper could be subject to a libel suit.
Lately, because the Legislature is considering legislation that would change child support rules, we’ve been receiving – and publishing – many letters on this issue. Some agree with our editorial position opposing this legislation, and some disagree.
But we’ve also had to spike several of these letters because the writers made their points by vilifying their adversaries in court cases. The best tactic for those who want to write for publication about divorce and custody issues is to stick to the overriding issues and save your claims about ex-spouses for the courtroom.
Posted by Mike Pride at March 8, 2006 06:47 PM
Comments
As a writer of letters to the ed. coming from a fairly sarcastic and "gadflyic" stance I'm am estatic when a letter gets published!
It is not a right to be printed in a private and commercial paper. We all have the right to publish what we want with our own time, ink and paper. (Which makes the internet such a wonderful thing)
It is however too bad that this opinion was not included in the on-going debate. Perhaps doing some severe editing, possibly contacting the author for an ok would have benifited the community. (Which I guess printing it here has the possibility to do)
Posted by: Michael Crane at April 1, 2006 01:21 AM