About those Palin letters
The candidacy of Sarah Palin has created a tsunami of passionate letters.
We already were on track to break records in the letters we've received this year. The tone, length, closeness of this year's presidential race -- as well as the cast of compelling figures -- virtually assure it.
The wave of Palin letters in particular has been a challenge, because of the debate over what is factual and what is not concerning her background.
Because so relatively little has been known about Gov. Palin until recently, some of these "facts" tend to be moving targets. As more reporting emerges, more is known and some impressions of her record could change.
In fact (no pun intended) a Los Angeles Times story reports on a rash of half-truths and out-and-out on both sides. We're seeing so many distortions, the story says, "because it works."
In such a fluid -- and testy environment -- we're trying to vet the letters as best we can. We are not staffed to check every fact in every single letter. But we do look into anything that appears suspicious.
We do so by checking credible, nonpartisan Web sites such as FactCheck.org. We do our own research. We consult our in-house library. And we call the letter writers to ask where they obtained certain information.
Most of the time that's enough. Sometimes it is not.
For instance, we published a correction Saturday on Palin's actions regarding funding for special-needs students in the Alaska budget.
A recent letter writer had contended that she cut that budget by 62 percent.
The Washington Post, among other media, reported that erroneously and I'm guessing the letter writer took his cue from them.
The fact is, she increased that funding.
But one caller didn't like our correction, which he considered spun to criticize Palin even as it set the record straight. Here is what we wrote:
Some media outlets, including The Washington Post, incorrectly reported Gov. Sarah Palin’s actions regarding funding for special-needs children in the Alaska budget. That information was repeated in a letter published Tuesday.
Palin actually increased that funding, though she did so at a lower amount than requested.
Obviously, all of this can get dicey. For instance, is it a fact that:
a. Palin supported the so-called Bridge to Nowhere.
b. Palin said no to the Bridge to Nowhere.
c. She did both.
The answer is both. So letters arguing "a" or "b" could be considered accurate, though incomplete.
At the same time, we've been criticized for tilting the letters against Palin by e-mailers, blog commenters and phone callers. In other words, we're running more anti-Palin letters that pro-Palin letters.
But the letters we publish reflect the letters we get. I typically ask people who raise such complaints if they have written such a letter and have not seen it published. Or if they know someone else who has.
They typically say no and I encourage them to write.
This is not a new phenomenon. It came up during the old FedEx hub debate (remember that?) with both sides claiming bias in favor of the other, and it came up as well during the Chief Wray-Mitchell Johnson controversy. And the Klan/Nazi shootings.
Then there are fabricated documents on the Internet that make scurrilous charges. One claims to be from an Alaska native and attacks Palin. Another purports to be from a soldier stationed in Afghanistan who upbraids Barack Obama for snubbing troops who wanted to meet him.
If you do intend to send us a letter you can help expedite it being published by citing your sources, especially for statistics.
One letter writer wrote to point out Obama's mere 143 days in the U.S. Senate. Problem is, the number is just plain wrong. When I called the writer to ask about the figure, he said a friend had told him.
He was very polite man when I called and his letter made a valid point about Obama's relative inexperience. (I asked to rewrite it and resubmit it.)
The bottom line: If you have something to say, wherever your loyalties lie, please write us. But please check your sources. It helps us publish your letter more quickly. And it helps you make a stronger, more credible argument.
All opinions are welcome on the editorial pages. But let's please, please agree to at least start with the same set of facts.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Obama voted for the bridge to no where.
Biden voted the bridge to no where.
Source of information. MSMBC belive it are not.
How many working days does Obama have in congress, I mean working days?
Posted on September 15, 2008 4:53 PM
I appreciated the wording of the correction, which pointed the blame in the direction of the liberal press and its biased "reporting." I see we're on the same page on that one.
I do take issue, though, with the final phrasing, which should have read "Palin actually increased that funding, though she did so at a lower amount than requested [by some crackpot Alaskan socialist so that he could whinge, as socialists are wont to do until they grow tiresome even to normal liberals, about purported 'underfunding' or budget 'cuts' that are actually budget increases at a rate lower than that desired by crackpot socialists.]"
Suggested addition [in brackets].
Posted on September 16, 2008 4:11 AM
I'm looking forward to hearing more about where all 4 of these people in the race stand on important issues like the environment, the economy, the wars and so on. Assuming we EVER really hear their actual, honest thoughts on the matters. Discussing personality traits is more of a distraction - and it makes me wonder why everyone is so keen on allowing distractions to take over yet another election.
Posted on September 16, 2008 8:24 AM