Comments on last week’s editorial commentary in this space, ‘Gossip wreaks havoc in people’s lives with speculation,’ generally agreed with the principle the editorial supported (that gossip is hurtful to individuals and their families and the larger the topic, such as arson, the greater the damage) a particular unsigned letter was received by The Expositor Office which clearly took exception with the paper, and in particular its publisher, on that topic.
Virtually always, unsigned letters do not get any attention from this paper’s editor. Occasionally, if an unsigned letter has merit we have advertised for the writer to contact the paper and discuss signing it for publication. Sometimes there is a response, sometimes not.
The unsigned letter recently received, though, is instructive to examine as its criticism of the paper and publisher misses the point of letters to the editor and their important role in the democratic process.
The editorial staff thought this letter might be a good foil against which to examine the underlying principle of this kind of public forum.
The thrust of the short missive is summarized nicely in its second paragraph: “Rumours often begin with a letter to the editor. You regularly print letters by the Islands (sic) biggest gossips that hurt individuals in the community. You never investigate to see if there is any truth – you just give the gossips a platform……over and over again!”
The final paragraph goes on to assert that “you (and the letter is personally addressed to the publisher) should feel shamefaced and you should keep it in your memory the next time you attack innocent people in our community through letters to the editor!”
While the paper has no idea of who did not sign this letter or what specific issue or issues he/she is referring to, he/she did get one thing right, if only by implication, and that is that the paper shares the responsibility with the writers for the letters’ contents.
That is precisely what makes the ‘letters to the editor’ forum such a useful and powerful place for ordinary people to comment on activities and events: their letter will be handled by a professional person who will often suggest changing the wording in such a way that the basic message is left intact but words that could be deemed libelous are eliminated.
Often, people pen letters to the editor in the heat of the moment or when they are angry. They leave it to the editor, then, to save them from themselves but they still have their say.
This fact, combined with the forum that a respected newspaper offers letter writers, gives people with something valid to say to the community and a safe place in which to say it.
People write letters to the editor for a variety of reasons: perhaps they’re angry or upset because they may feel that “their ox has been gored” or perhaps they simply have something to add to the general discussion on a current topic or perhaps their message is largely self serving.
In every situation, the test for the editor (as well as weeding out spelling mistakes and grammar clangors and libelous statements) in assessing a letter as suitable for publication is a simple one: “is this fair comment?”
“Fair comment” is the concept that whatever the writer’s motivation, including self interest, there is something he or she is suggesting in the letter that is of legitimate concern to the community as a whole, or certainly to some members of it, because it materially affects the interests of the community. Fair comment must be based on an honest expression of the writer’s real opinion and must not extend beyond matters of public concern (i.e. ‘Fair comment’ does not apply to a letter whose only motivation is easily recognized as self-interest although if the argument can be deemed to be useful to the larger community, which of course can include the writer, then it is ‘fair comment.’)
Sometimes, perhaps, once a year, when there is a question about whether ‘fair comment’ informs a particular letter the editor will discuss the matter with a specialist lawyer who may suggest changes that, if significant, are relayed to the letter writer.
The newspaper does not solicit letters to the editor, however it is not unusual for someone at the paper to say to a person hoping to have a story made out of his/her opinion on something or other, “you could write a letter to the editor about that.”
Often, letters are written in anger and offer opinions about people and institutions that aren’t printable as written and which also don’t fall into the category of ‘fair comment.’ In these cases the editor will often contact the writer and suggest they re-think what they wish to say in such a way that it has public merit. Sometimes, but not often, people will make a second, more reasoned effort but usually this doesn’t happen and so the letter of course goes unpublished. (Presumably, writing the original letter and venting their anger in this way has been a useful personal experience whether the letter sees publication or not.)
This paper carries a lot of letters to the editor. Sometimes a topic (such as wind turbines, pro or con) will be top of mind for enough people in the community to write many, many letters over several months debating the topic, adding to the dialogue and refuting others’ claims.
While some people find this becomes redundant when such a topic is publicly debated at length by ordinary Manitoulin citizens, it is also a way for the community to, collectively, vent its opinions on all sides of the topic. In very controversial situations, this paper has always felt it is providing a therapeutic service to the community where strongly held opinions can be expressed publicly in this way rather than remaining merely collective pent up anger. The paper’s letters space, then, can act as a community safety valve for emotionally-charged issues.
The letter below is a shining example that represents fair comment and also advances the discussion of an important community topic.
Letters to the editor are taken very seriously here and the paper is proud that people continually and routinely make use of this forum.
As for the claim by the anonymous letter writer that the paper, and in particular the publisher, purposely uses the letters space to mischievously foment gossip, that is the first time that such an accusation has been leveled against the paper or its publisher in his nearly half century of newspapering.
On the other hand, the receipt of the unsigned letter has given the paper this opportunity to share the process of editing others’ opinions expressed in this traditional way and explaining this useful community service.
R.L. McCutcheon, publisher
