We welcome all points of view in letters, but please stick to the facts
This week's column is an expanded version of a previious post.
The candidacy of Sarah Palin has created a tsunami of passionate letters.
In fact, this is shaping up as an extraordinary year for letters. The tone, length and closeness of this year’s presidential race — as well as the cast of compelling figures — virtually assure it.
As of Thursday, we had received 3,114 letters this year and had published 1,545. We’re having to find extra space to fit them all in.
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 had 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 have changed.
Meanwhile, sooty campaigns on both sides of the aisle, and in national and state races, haven’t been helpful. In fact, even when some allegations have been proven as distortions, if not outright lies, they’ve continued to appear in sneering TV ads.
In one of the more ironic cases, a nonpartisan vetting Web site, FactCheck.org took a McCain ad to task for misrepresenting ... FactCheck.org.
In such a fluid — and testy — environment, we vet the letters as best we can. We don’t check every fact in every single letter. But we do look into anything that appears suspicious. We do so by checking credible Web sites such as FactCheck.org and snopes.com. 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 a week ago 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, had reported that erroneously and I’m guessing the letter writer took his cue from them.
But one caller didn’t like our correction, which he considered spun to criticize Palin even as it set the record straight.
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 last week.
“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. Or did both.
The answer is “c.” So letters arguing “a” or “b” could be considered accurate, though incomplete. She supported the bridge, then later opposed it.
And it would be more accurate to say that Congress stopped it.
At the same time, we’ve been criticized for tilting the letters against Palin. In other words, running more anti-Palin letters than 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. If your letter meets our basic standards, we’ll publish it.
If anything, we prefer a healthy mixture of dueling opinions. It makes the letters section more robust and interesting.
This is not a new phenomenon. It came up during the old FedEx hub debate (remember that?) as well as 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. It has appeared under different names all over cyberspace. Another purports to be from a soldier stationed in Afghanistan who upbraids Barack Obama for snubbing troops who wanted to meet him. The soldier does not exist.
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. Sheesh.
The bottom line: If you have something to say, wherever your loyalties lie, please write us. And please check your accuracy.
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 (15)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Obama's 143 days in the senate came from Dick Morris in his best seller, "Fleeced" describing all the ways that we are being fleeced by the congress.
That figure was the actual number of "working" days Obama had spent in the senate when he decided that due to his "brilliant record of achievement" there, he should be president! So obviously the 143 day number is not accurate today, though since he began running he hasn't spent much time at "work!"
I admire your use of "fact check. org" to try to ferrert out the correct information. Too bad the folks who run Obama's blatantly dishonest ads aren't quite so conscientious!
His latest, a Spanish speaking ad, using some, apparently, very inflammatory words by Rush Limbaugh concerning illegal immigration conveniently leave out the most important part of the tirade. That would be a the end when Limbaugh says that the words were not his, but rather the wording of the Mexican Constitution regarding illegal immigrants in Mexico!
The ad went on to try to tie McCain to Limbaugh concerning illegal immigration most know that Limbaugh's disdain for McCain's stance, and a few other key issues, has led him to continually trash McCain, and play his many McCain parodies, that mock McCain on numerous issues.
Almost immediately after the ad aired, even a few liberal news outlets, to their credit, debunked the ad, and were quite critical. Most political ads exaggerate, or stretch the truth, but this ad was a known lie from the get go.
I guess Obama thought that the Hispanic polulation is too stupid to know the truth, you know the ones clinging to their Burros, and pitchforks!
I
Posted on September 21, 2008 7:56 AM
Good advice to readers as well as reporters and editors, because you see
Journalism Has Lost Its Way
" Today the profession of news journalism has lost its way. Opinion has leaked beyond the editorial pages to the rest of the newspaper. “Newsmen” publish unconfirmed rumors that support their stances and ignore inconvenient facts that don’t. Outside the office, they openly display their political preferences; there’s no attempt to maintain even the appearance of objectivity.
Yet when Obama emerged from a curtain on stage, the audience of more than 2,000 [minority journalists] bolted to its feet, cheered and whistled. His remarks drew repeated applause throughout the 30-minute broadcast, which CNN and Time Inc. sponsored.
Reporters, if you want to be an advocate, do both yourself and journalism a favor. Leave. Go to Madison Avenue. The pay’s better. "
Posted on September 21, 2008 1:04 PM
(Form a previous LTTE-)
Palin lies to win support
I just read that Sarah Palin is challenging Barack Obama about earmarks. She, in her short tenure as governor, got 10 times more earmark spending for Alaska than any other state. She campaigned for the bridge to nowhere until it got so much publicity and proved so unpopular she gave it up.
We should all have serious concerns about her truthfulness and ethics. She is already in a legal battle for trying to have her sister’s ex-husband fired. Do you want to elect a person who is already deliberately misleading the American people? Haven’t we had enough of that with George Bush and his WMDs? People, please look past her pretty face. Given McCain’s health and age, she could well find herself as president of the United States. She’s no more ready to be president than I am. But at least I wouldn’t lie to get elected!
Joni Carter
Reidsville
Allen- yous guys didn't try too hard on this one, did you? Calling anyone a liar is not an opinion- it's an invitation to a butt whippin'
Posted on September 21, 2008 2:41 PM
P.S.
If I say Obama claims to support the Second Amendment but in reality has supported every backhanded piece of legislation that would have unarmed law abiding Americans, and recently told his supporters to confront everyone they meet and lie about his "support", can I say Obama is a liar?
Obama is a liar.
Yep, I said it.
Posted on September 21, 2008 2:46 PM
Joni is just another of those "enlightened" liberals who has no clue as to the responsibilities, to earmarking authority, of various branches of government. Senators and congressmen, not mayors can get earmarks for their city or state.
I guess that Civics is no longer taught in government schools. Will any of you Obama supporters plese tell if Obama ever one time, tried to root out corruption in his party. Just one time! Tell us one time that Obama challenged the liberal power elites in Chicago!
You folks are truly deranged. ONE TIME! ONE NAME!
Posted on September 22, 2008 2:55 PM
Allen-
Quick off-topic question regarding woman who ran off road near Lake Higgins. The News and Record quoted the police as saying that they were looking into alcohol as being one of the issues. What does this mean? Does this mean that she took a test and they have reason to believe she was drinking...or do they say that in every accident? If I were in an auto accident, I would hate for that to be said about my driving without any basis in fact. People would just generally remember the alcohol quote.
So what say you? Thanks!
Posted on September 23, 2008 8:24 AM
Allen, I think you should put a disclaimer at the top of the LTE column that letters expressing points of view that may be proselytizing, strongly voiced and one-sided are not free speech.
Posted on September 23, 2008 11:11 AM
Thoughts, Police are looking into alcohol being a factor means, in this case and in many cases, that they have sent blood to the SBI to be tested for the presence of alcohol.
GPD Officer E.K Wrenn, who investigated the accident, said the driver smelled of alcohol and that she said that she had been drinking.
Posted on September 23, 2008 11:44 AM
Come again, Savage?
Posted on September 23, 2008 1:09 PM
I thought you read JR's blog. Guess not. Not that that's unusual. Was a carry over from JR's and his new rule re: what makes speech "free" etc.
Posted on September 23, 2008 1:50 PM
Mr. Robinson -
Regarding the woman who ran off the road and into the lake - why wasn't she given a breathalyzer on the spot? According to the officer she smelled of alcohol, admitted drinking, and had an accident. It takes about 10 seconds to give an alcohol breathalyzer yet we're waiting weeks to get blood back to determine if alcohol was involved? Even if they were testing blood for other substances couldn't they have given the breathalyzer that night to determine if alcohol was an issue?
Posted on September 23, 2008 10:12 PM
Thanks, John.
Posted on September 23, 2008 10:55 PM
i have been surprised this election with the rumors that have run rampant. I think a large part of that can be attributed to the internet and forwarded emails. Rumors move at the speed of sound now.
Posted on September 23, 2008 11:00 PM
And they can be vicious.
Posted on September 24, 2008 8:39 AM
You can say that again.
Posted on September 24, 2008 10:30 AM