Want to lie in a letter to the editor? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is for you!

[Newsjock]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/08/03/inside_0804.html

Here's a question that has come up a few times in recent months: "Why does the AJC allow letter writers to make statements that aren't factual?"

... Editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker once believed all letters should be factually accurate, but now she's more likely to let readers have their say and let others decide whether the letter writer is indeed stating facts.

... Tucker says the AJC has printed many letters from readers insisting that PeachCare has run out of money because so many illegal immigrants are on the rolls. "That's not true, but if we don't print those letters, those readers will believe we're biased," she said.

Readers who still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they were taking to Syria are allowed to express that view even though it is clearly not true.

[gratuitous]

1. Well, if you didn't allow them to out-and-out lie

You'd have some uninformed readers thinking you're biased. Okay, that's just :crazy:

But I'm sure that Atlanta's paper gives over all sorts of letter-writing space to folks who are absolutely convinced that the World Trade Center towers were dynamited from within, right?

[Solly Mack]

2. damn

[rucky]

3. "The truth has a liberal bias to it." n/t

[mn9driver]

4. Fair and Balanced.

Giving equal time to blatant lies is now considered "good journalism". No refutation by the reporter or editor is allowed; that would be "biased". It is up to the reader to know that the lies are, in fact, lies.

How the reader is supposed to get this information isn't addressed.

[karlrschneider]

5. I tossed her a little email:

You are quoted as saying "We live in such a politically polarized age that not everybody agrees on the facts." It appears
you are unable to distinguish fact from opinion (or perhaps, delusion.) Why are you afraid of offending a completely
uninformed writer, or worse yet, a liar?

Karl Schneider

[jody]

6. LTTE are on the opinion page so what's the problem? n/t

[karlrschneider]

7. The problem is that opinions that are contradicted by facts are PERCEIVED

as 'facts' by far too many untutored casual observers. And Kool Aid drinkers.

[jody]

10. If a paper applied a 100% fact check, IMO it would reject most letters and waste editorial time.

Most papers check for libel for which the paper could be sued. More than that would approach censorship.

[karlrschneider]

11. Yeah, you're right. Why bother with integrity and honesty...? That would be silly.

:silly:

[jody]

12. "integrity and honesty" pertains to the LTTE writer, not the paper. n/t

[karlrschneider]

13. Perpetuating misinformation and lies is a mark of integrity?

Who knew?
:eyes:

[jody]

14. Why do you twist my words? I quoted your phrase and whether it is present or absent in a LTTE is up

to the writer.

I've read many complaints from DU members over the past 6 years about papers that edited their LTTE such that it lost it's original meaning. I've had several like experiences myself.

For me, I prefer a paper publish my LTTE exactly as I wrote it because changing or omitting any part of it may and has changed the thrust of my letter.

IMO the issue is a fundamental exercise of freedom of speech which includes every LTTE writer's freedom to be wrong in all it's varieties.

[emilyg]

8. AJC is a rag

[MiniMe]

9. Seems to be an easy fix, something I have seen before

Print the writers original uninformed letter, and then put a "from the editor" paragraph and point out where inaccuracies are.