The Public Opinion Soapbox

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 577

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/opinion/ci_7558273

obviously this is a ridiculous letter to the editor. It's been thouroughly discussed on haloscan. I don't even belive it warrants discussion, which brings up my point. What responsibility does the Public Opinion have in publishing letters? If I wrote one titled "Voting for Republicans is like voting for pedophiles like Mark Foley to abuse your children, and for kitties and puppies to die" would it be published? We place limits on freedom of speech all the time (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater"), and a newspaper not publishing any letter certainly isn't a limit on free speech. I'd like to think only letters which move public debate forward could be published. What are your thoughts?

I realize that a lot of letters will be continued to be published which contain fallacies (I wrote a letter once addressing a Bill Shuster letter which was full of them). I realize that publishing a letter with fallacies gives others the oppurtunity to address them. But this letter seems to me to cross the line on something that offers nothing.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2663 Location: Chambersburg

That letter is hilarious; I don't care who you are, if you're a reasonable, intelligent American, you realize how ridiculous every word of that is.

The fact is, the PO simply publishes letters they get; including outrageous ones like this from absolute right-wing wackos. Yet Haloscan is full of comments from people saying that no conservative should read the PO and that it's a "liberal rag." What a sad place we live in.

My favorite has to be this though:

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 577

yeah, but I think some of the problems that we're having with dialogue and discourse in this country are due to the fact that politics have become entertainment. The media is at least partly responsible for this, and while the PO might think letters like these stir things up and get people involved in gov't, they're hurting the country in the long run. It's one thing to print liberal and conservative columns, it's another thing to print garbage in the paper.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 577

AnonyMouse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 536

I'm sure the PO has a policy on what letters it will publish - that someone has thought it through. I'd be interested to learn what their policy is (Editor - is it published somewhere? I can't find it online).

Years ago, Phil Donahue would allow white supremacists to come on his show and spew their filth, believing that when their ugliness was shown in the light of day, people would reject it for the slime it is.

I tend to think that the letters to the editor page could be that - a place where bigots and demagogues say what they think and are accepted or rejected based on the value of what they say. Ideally the HaloScan would serve as a corrective for fanatical ranting. But with the ability to post anonymously under as many different names as you like, the fanatic extremists seem to dominate the HaloScan, limiting reasonable discourse over there.

But, you're right A.C. - the only purpose of today's letter was to enrage and offend a certain group of people. While it didn't contain personal attacks, or sexual, profane, or racist language (which I'm sure are criteria the PO uses), it did not comment on a recently published article or a current event, which seem like fair criteria for publishing a letter too. It did not cite sources of the "facts" presented, which seems like another reasonable rule for letters. And while it did contain specific criticisms of public figures, it had disparaging assertions about a whole group of people, which seems like a sensible thing to refuse to print.

The PO does not abridge anyone's freedom of speech by putting limits on what it will publish, but many traditional media outlets today are so gun shy of the label "liberal media" that they skew right to try to appear "balanced" to the shrill wingnuts.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2663 Location: Chambersburg

I think the opinion pages are important forum for people to express themselves. Many of the letters are thoughtful and bring up excellent points; but you have to take this with those as well. I'm not in favor of censoring anything or anyone.

Rush Limbaugh was once asked what he thought about the accusation that he was simply contributing toward a feeling of distrust and resentment that has been continually dividing America into red states and blue states.

He had this to say:

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 577

i don't want to censor anyone. but what if someone writes a letter filled with inaccuracies and untrue statements. by publishing it in the paper, the statements are validated. the papers have an important, serious responsibility to the public, one that I believe they don't take lightly. but this seems like a case where a decision was made that the letter would be published for no reason other than entertainment and inflammation. I'm not calling for censorship, just a responsible use of the voice that they have.

it hasn't come up yet, but i just wanted to point out that it's not a free speech thing either. the paper can run anything it wants, in fact by requiring they run everything or anything, free speech would be infringed. papers are driven by market forces to either be center or left or right, based on the audience they want. but by not running letters from one extreme or the other that are not based on fact, and serve only to be inflammatory, noone's right to free speech has been impeded.

AnonyMouse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 536

I think some would make the argument that by not publishing a letter the PO is abridging a citizen's right to free speech. That is certainly the rant a wingnut would use to cry discrimination when a letter isn't published. I disagree. My right to free speech does not give me the right to use a newspaper or radio station to broadcast my speech.

I once heard Dr. Laura cry about her free speech rights being abridged when a group boycotted certain advertisers, who then pulled their ads and caused some stations to drop her show. But the first amendment only protects against government intrusion into speech - for-profit companies backing out of a business contract (or the PO not publishing a letter) are not infringements on free speech.

The PO has freedom of the press, so they can publish what they like. But A.C. is totally correct - it needs to be balanced against the larger good and the interests of the community they serve.

Mavis · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 74

I don't think anyone would be happy if the PO were to judge letters based on an editors' view of the merits of the arguments or points being made.

What's important to one person is ridiculous to another. Also, one person's facts often are another's "spin." Look at how many politicians claim that they are stating facts (for instance about the child healthcare program).

What the PO is doing is giving every person a chance to put their views out there and see how they hold up to scrutiny in what used to be called "the marketplace of ideas."

What I find ironic is how much time people, especially on Haloscan, spend discussing and ridiculing letters/comments which they say are too trivial to have been published. If they are so trivial, why respond at all?

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3093 Location: Chambersburg

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2663 Location: Chambersburg

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 577

don't worry, I'm smart enough to spot absurdity.

my point was that this country has suffered greatly at the media's polarization of politics. "debate" shows, black and white rhetoric, and sensationalization sell media, but it does so at a disservice all of us. and while we might be more like to consume a medium like newspaper if it can be exciting through absurd letters to the editor, it really serves no point other than to sell papers.

me · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 119

So, are you saying that Mr. Moores allegations of wrong doings by Democrats are incorrect, false, etc or what ?

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 577

I'm saying certain people, Marlin Wagner (I think that's his name) this Moore guy, and many others polarize politics and don't provide legitimate useful debate. name calling, fallacy, over generalization, etc, may allow you to win an argument on the playground, but they don't accomplish anything in real life.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 577

I guess the PO agrees. Maybe whoever selects letters to editor should read this editorial:

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/opinion/ci_7606828