News-Record.com

As I took a closer looked at the hard copy of the e-mail letter, there was a note at the bottom:

"NOTICE: In a fax to your editor just before you began your 'blog' (which he chose not to answer), I specifically said I do NOT wish to have any of my letters posted on your 'blog' site, since I have neither the time, ability nor interest in going there.

"I buy your paper. That's the only place I see any answers posted to my letters."

So I called the writer back and explained that we could not publish his letter if he didn't want it posted on the blog. All letters are posted in the blog, I said.

I also explained that it was OK if he didn't want to participate in the blog. He didn't have to. Others could comment on the topic, which in this case dealt with identity theft. And he could read any letters responding to his letter the old-fashioned way, in the newspaper.

He was not pleased. He said no such policy was published in the paper. I agreed. We couldn't publish every guideline for letters in the paper, I said, for lack of space. But my co-workers and I had been considering adding some language about the blog policy.

He said I was blackballing him.

I tried to explain that the choice ultimately was his. He didn't have to participate in the blog. Others could discuss the points he was raising. He hung up.

I called him back. He said he would spread the word about how badly he'd been treated by the News & Record. And he hung up again.

He wasn't kidding.

Before long I received several e-mails from throughout North Carolina and beyond.

Here is what they had heard from him on a list serve called TrueBlueNetwork:

"On June 22, I was informed by Greensboro (NC) News & Record editorial page editor Alan Johnson that I was permanently blackballed from the editorial pages of his newspaper."

Later, he went on to recount our conversation:

"In two separate phone calls, he (meaning me) made clear that he was creating a new standing policy that any letter I ever write shall NEVER be published in the Greensboro N&R.

"For decades, each Letter to the Editor from me has been accepted, with no problem.

"I have a long standing policy that anyone who ever lies to me over the phone shall never be allowed to contact me again by any means for any reason.

"On June 22, Alan Johnson (sic) activated this policy by notified me that my letter would be published, and then refusing to do so.

"My letters which were accepted by the News & Record for publication -- but which Editor Johnson does not want you to read -- are shown below. ..."


For the record, one of the letters, again, offered pointers on preventing identity theft; the other criticized the Bush administration for the war in Iraq. Neither was particularly controversial or especially different from many letters we publish regularly.

Also, interestingly, his comments made no mention of the blog policy. He simply implied that his letters were rejected because I did not like what they said. Sheesh.

Ironically, this man used the Internet commenting to protest that hs didn't want to participate in Internet commenting in the News & Record.

As I wrote in a response to the emails raising concerns about the News & Record's letters policy, we welcome this gentleman to submit his letters in the future. But they will be published only if he agrees that it's OK to post them in the blog.

If not, there are many other papers he can write.

Meanwhile, he did not turn down his fiery rhetoric.

A later e-mail from him equated the News & Record's letters blog policy to "extortion and rape."

"... I have nothing against VOLUNTARY blogs," he wrote.

"But the N&R is a universe away from being voluntary. When they force writers to their newspaper Editorial Page (governed by one set of rules) to join their internet blog (governed by an entirely different set of rules)against their will, it is akin to the same
kind of force used in rape and extortion."

At least he was addressing the real issue at hand rather than a bogus charge that I was blackballing him because I didn't like the opinions in his letters .

I can respect his decision not to have his letters published. But I did not appreciate being called a liar in a nationally circulated e-mail.

Finally, if he should again ever submit a letter to the editor and he agrees to the paper's conditions for its publication, we'll consider it. And that, folks, is the truth.