Call for substantive changes to be cleared with writer before publishing
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following excerpts from Mr. Nicholls’ letter of August 7 were excised from the original in order to facilitate publishing. The Expositor maintains that the editing did not substantively change the message being proffered by the writer as the first instance was largely expressed in a previous letter to The Expositor. The excerpts are published below in order to allow the reader to judge for themselves. The Expositor prides itself on publishing opinions that diverge from this newspaper’s editorial stance unless they contain libelous or blatant misinformation—this sometimes involves judgement calls that writers do not always agree with.
“Was 911 possibly a giant experiment to test and justify the effects of geoengineering? Following the attacks that provided George Bush the side benefit and perfect opportunity to reclaim US oil buried under the sands of Iraq and prop up the welfare of the military industrial complex, the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater took the opportunity to grab temperature data from immediately before the attack, and the three days of grounded flights. They say the change in the temperature difference was plus 1.8° Celsius.”
“What can be done when a corporation and the governments that serve them want to exploit resources when there is a pesky boreal forest and so-called environmentalists in the way? There is an easy solution that provides easy access to elements needed for EVs and smart phones. Burn that forest down, but label it as climate change. Blame it on and demand concessions from the peasants. Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
To the Expositor:
I recently submitted a letter-to-the-editor to The Manitoulin Expositor. I’ve submitted numerous letters over the last decade. Most have been published. I’ve also seen many stories published that I have been involved in. There have also been a number of stories that I participated in and believed to be of community importance that weren’t reported on. This is just how it goes.
I generally spend much time preparing and wording my letters. This most recent letter was no exception.
The last letter I submitted regarded geoengineering, more specifically the role of forest fires in geoengineering. The letter I submitted was not the letter that was printed.
Two paragraphs were removed, along with a question, and most significantly, the wording of one paragraph was changed. I believe this effectively changed the intent and character of the letter.
I contacted the editor at the Expositor to voice my concern. I was told that the letter was shortened in order to fit in the paper. He wasn’t concerned with that at all. In regards to having someone changing the text of my letter, he voiced concern and said he would speak to the person who did that. No corrective action was offered.
I suggested that changing a letter-to-the-editor could call into question the integrity of the paper, and that perhaps this was a more common practice. He assured me that it hadn’t happened in years.
I appreciate that a newspaper won’t always print everything that is submitted.
My suggestion was that if the paper wants to make substantive changes to a letter that perhaps they could communicate with the author first. I also suggested that in the future, if they felt the need to substantially alter my submission without speaking to me beforehand, that I would prefer the letter not be printed at all. The editor found that very interesting and encouraged me to continue writing letters.
Sincerely,
Zak Nicholls
Little Current
