Don't Letters to the Editor have to be "factually" correct???

TNOE

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:40 PM
Original message

Don't Letters to the Editor have to be "factually" correct???

I realize these letters are only people's thoughts - but it pisses me off when they are not factual or accurate. One today said something to the effect that "everybody knows.... that the Geneva Convention applies ONLY to prisoners in "uniform"...."

I wonder if Editors are deliberately sloppy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

yardwork

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:42 PM
Response to Original message

1. No. Our local rag publishes the most unbelievable stuff

as long as it reflects the right-wing point of view.

If a letter writer suggests that W might not be telling the entire truth about everything, well of course that letter gets deep-sixed because it is of "questionable accuracy."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

catzies

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:43 PM
Response to Original message

2. Last month my paper printer an old email hoax as editorial,

that was easily debunked with a quick trip to snopes.com, something which the editor didn't do. It was the old one about Congresspeople not paying into Social Security.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

havocmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:43 PM
Response to Original message

3. Perhaps some editors want to let ignorance be its own embassador

Why not write a rebuttle to the letter yourself? That might just be why the editors put it in there, to inspire thought and sane response.

Go for it. Feels good.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TNOE

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. I used to get printed quite often

Edited on Wed May-12-04 04:46 PM by TNOE

however, NONE of the last 10 I've sent have been printed, so I've more or less given up. Very repuke town.

Edited - Damn, I can't type worth a shit today.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HEyHEY

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:44 PM
Response to Original message

4. A shitty paper will take no responsibility for it....

Our competition prints any piece of crap they are given....I couldn't believe it when this week I saw one written by a homophobic anti-semetic fundie crazy woman that finally stopped sending us letters cause we wouldn't print them.
Makes me wonder if the guy even reads them.

Anyway, the PROPER way to do screen letters is that if ANYTHING is presented as a fact...it must be checked out. Opinions don't matter...they can say whatever foolish thing they want. But as for facts, I always check em.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tom_paine

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message

6. Only if the writers aren't Busheviks

Have you noticed that Bushevik Letters to the Editor get printed complete with the vilest calumnies against Liberals, but I can tell you for a FACT that even 10% the same rude vileness gets a letter SUMMARILY REJECTED if they are telling the truth about "conservatives" (not even sure such people exists anymore, all is Duty to Volk and Vuhrer*) let alone mouthing even mild calumnies.

Oh, that Liberal Media! :silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

T Roosevelt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message

7. Hell, editorials don't have to be factual

just ask David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Thomas Friedman, and everybody else from townhall.com that gets published in newspapers...I've even seen editorials from local writers (the Orlando Slantinel) that distort the truth beyond recognition...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JohnLocke

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #7

11. Kathleen Parker comes to mind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HFishbine

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 04:53 PM
Response to Original message

8. My paper uses factual correctness as a filter

Letters to the editor speculating on pollution that could be caused by a local project were rejected because the were "factually unfounded." Yet, a letter QUOTING senate testimony by Rumsfeld that was, in fact, never said, was published a few weeks ago.

I have never, ever enountered a profession where the practitioners care so little about integrity or standards as my local newspaper and TV stations. It is truley pathetic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

central scrutinizer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 05:13 PM
Response to Original message

9. they aren't fact checked, but

it gives you an opportunity to write a rebuttal that is fact checked. This can make for a very effective letter. Include references to legitimate sources whenever possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TNOE

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Thanks for response

but honestly, you have no idea how many times I've done this - and they were damn good "short" to the point letters - the rebuttal NEVER gets printed. As I said before, I'm so sick of it, I've pretty much given up - and we wonder why the masses are so ill-informed.

LTEE used to be allowed 225 words - now 125 or less.... I get the idea they don't really want to hear to much from the people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

baldguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 06:02 PM
Response to Original message

12. Generally, that's true.

The Geneva Conventions proscribe the behaviour of member of the armed forces of the signatories.

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, so that means it's our behaviour that is proscribed. NO MATTER WHO OR WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING: WE MUST FOLLOW THE RULES!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

City Lights

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-12-04 06:05 PM
Response to Original message

13. Not in AZ.

There was one from a right-wing screamer the other day expressing outrage that the editors of the paper had the nerve to be outraged about the torture of prisoners. He went on screaming and eventually mentioned "Richard" Pearl's death. I was surprised the paper printed it. Not sure if they were too stupid to notice, or if they wanted to let the guy make an ass of himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 09th 2024, 12:27 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.