Search for new and used cars from NH dealers.
web feeds

Mobile

May032008

‘What Were You Thinking To Publish That Letter?’

Filed under Uncategorized by nick pappas at 8:21 pm

Freedom of speech versus freedom to be obnoxious.

That might be the best way to frame the conversation that has been taking place on our Opinion pages and online – not to mention in my personal e-mail folder – ever since I chose to publish a letter to the editor last Sunday about the Legislature’s ill-fated attempt to adopt a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Check that.

It wasn’t so much about impeachment per se as it was about the arguably insulting language directed at the prime sponsor of the resolution: state Rep. Betty Hall of Brookline.

The letter, written by Ben Charles of Nashua, started off innocuously enough by expressing confusion over our decision to publish a front-page story one day on Hall’s impeachment effort and then to editorialize against it on the next. (A textbook illustration on the independence between the news pages and the editorial pages, by the way.)

Then the letter writer turned his attention to Hall, the 87-year-old Democratic lawmaker who has devoted much of her life to public service.

Among the phrases that some readers felt were over the line:

  • Referring to Hall as a “generic buffoon” and a “misguided relic.”
  • Suggesting “her brain has atrophied to the point that it no longer recognizes the Constitution for what it is but prefers to use it as a morality flag.”
  • Recommending that if she and her “loathsome cohorts” really wanted to make a positive contribution to society, they should all “double-time it to meet your maker.”

As you can imagine, the letter – and more to the point, our decision to publish it – sparked criticism among some readers, who felt it was unsuitable for publication in this newspaper.

Among the first people to respond was Mike Mullinax of Nashua, whose letter was published on Wednesday. He argued that such language might be appropriate in a barroom, but not in a family newspaper.

“Presenting such caustic viewpoints in this paper is an embarrassment to our community,” he wrote. “It misleads many to view this locality as a safe haven for individuals whose only means of expressing a viewpoint is the figurative disembowelment of others.”

That letter resulted in more than a dozen online comments by the end of the day Wednesday, some in agreement and others who felt it was fine to allow Mr. Charles to have his say.

“Thank you Mike for calling for contributors to raise the bar and promote respectful discourse on important matters, no matter if they are in the minority Republican or Democratic Party, or with the decidedly independent party,” Marty Walsh wrote.

On the other hand, someone logging in as “Dot” disagreed.

“Isn’t ‘Freedom of Speech’ one of our constitutional rights? Or is that gone now too?” she wrote. “If you don’t like what’s printed in The Telegraph, don’t read it! Everybody has a right to their own opinion. If you don’t like it, too bad!”

Now, some of you may recall that when I wrote a column last month explaining the guidelines I use in choosing letters for publication, I touched briefly on the kind of letters that were unlikely to see the light of day. I described those as “libelous, insulting or patently offensive.”

All of which brings us to the question of the day: Did the original letter writer’s anti-Hall diatribe cross that line?

In situations such as this, I basically have four options: publish the letter as is; edit out the offensive language; contact the letter writer and ask him or her to tone it down; or reject it out of hand.

Looking back, perhaps I should have engaged Mr. Charles in a conversation about softening some of the language in his letter, while still permitting him to make his point. As a matter of principle, however, I’m generally reluctant to do that, since these letters are supposed to represent your thoughts, not mine.

Truth be told, these aren’t my favorite types of letters anyway. Philosophically, I’m much closer to Mr. Mullinax in preferring though-provoking, well-reasoned letters that contribute to a civil discourse of the issues of the day.

Whether that is a positive or negative attribute for someone in my position, of course, is for you to decide.

But enough about me. What would you have done? Run it? Not run it? Why or why not?

While this train already has left the proverbial station, no doubt the same dilemma will arise again, particularly as we draw closer to state and national elections. Why not use it as a learning experience?

You can either shoot me a note to my work e-mail address or post your comments at the bottom of this blog. Maybe I’ll even publish some of your responses in the paper at a later date.

Just don’t call me any names.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor of The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    There is nothing new here. Betty Hall has been an elected official from Brookline for many years, and has had similar stands on many issues. Apparently a majority of the good voters of Brookline find her views acceptable enough to return her to the General Court for frequent terms.

    While many may agree with the sentiments of the writer of the first letter, some of the lanuage is clearly pejorative and probably over the top for a "letter to the editor," in my view. Older readers would find this language dis-courteous as a minimum and more of a personal attack on a duly elected Rep who has ALWAYS had these types of views. But also it has to be said that similar or worse sentiments are expressed in many internet fora.


    So is this a double standard between the traditional "written press" and say a blog or other internet forum? Possibly. Does that mean emails for a letter to the editor should be perhaps somewhat "different" or more polite than what you might find on the net?


    Yes, possibly. YOUcan make the decision for the editorial page tone, but have little control over the content of internet posts, however expressed, unless it is clearly foul language or perhaps "off topic" and can then not be accepted, based on the "loose rules" of internet posting on SOME sites.


    Bottom line: this reader expects a higher standard for written "letters to the editor" compared with internet "spouting off"or other perhaps unfair or unwarranted posts with stream of consciousness thoughts.

    • ^
    • v

    I found nothing wrong with Mr Charles' letter. His point of view and choice of language probably doesn't sway me towards his point of view, but I doubt that is his intention. He strikes me as the guy who's "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". Seems to me that voice has as much right to be heard here as Betty Hall's.

    • ^
    • v

    Though I'm a Bush supporter, I must say that Ms. Hall, Mr. Mullinax, et al, have a right to be heard. The whole point of an online (or printed) discourse is to express views, and, of course, some will feel contrary to what's expressed.


    I haven't read a single word that offends me on this subject, even though I disagree with some. However, unless an editorial (or a RAN comment) is blatantly offensive, I don't believe that it should be edited.

    • ^
    • v

    Perhaps one guidline to follow when deciding whether or not to print a particular letter is to insist that it be free of ad hominem attack that is nothing more than a diatribe about the person at the expense of a clear discussion of the issues. Surely Mr Charles'comments like "misguded relic", "her brain has atrophied..." and "double time it to meet your maker" are all derogatory references to Rep Betty Hall's age. I believe Mr. Charles crossed the line because he intended to inflict personal insult and pain on Rep Hall by appealing to the reader's feelings and/or prejudices rather than intellect. I would not have printed Mr. Charles' letter as originally submitted.

    • ^
    • v

    What I found truly laughable about Mr. Charles' letter and what I feel destroyed any claim he might have had to credibility was his use of the phrase "generic buffoon". Given the content of the rest of his letter he obviously meant to say "geriatric buffoon". Anyone with such an imprecise grasp of English vocabulary really can't expect to have his opinion taken seriously.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus