The Ethics of Printing a Letter to the Editor Containing a Clearly False Assertion
A letter in this morning’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer raises an issue I have discussed before: what are the ethics of a newspaper’s decision to print a letter to the editor, which makes a factual assertion that the editors know (or should know) is not true?
In my opinion: the ethical principle is clear: don’t print false assertions of fact, period — even if they are contained in the opinion section of the paper. The Dog Trainer violated this principle this morning, printing a letter to the editor with a provably false factual assertion.
The offending letter can be found at the bottom of this link. Here is the letter in its entirety:
Though I can’t excuse Scalia for his poor judgment, I’m wondering why none of the criticism seems to be directed toward Cheney and his motives for inviting Scalia on the hunting trip in the first place.
Susan Sokoloff
Beverly Hills
Well, Susan Sokoloff of Beverly Hills, I can put an end to your wondering. Cheney didn’t invite Scalia on the hunting trip. Rather, Scalia invited Cheney on the trip (passing along the invitation from the host). There is no evidence to the contrary — none, zip, zilch. Nada.
I am not particularly interested in the fact that Susan Sokoloff of Beverly Hills isn’t familiar with the facts. Familiarity with the basic facts of a topic is not generally considered a requirement for an American to have a firm and confident opinion on the subject.
But the editors who printed this letter should know better.
Ethically, a newspaper’s editors cannot print anything containing an assertion of fact that the editors know not to be true — even in the guise of providing a forum for their readers’ opinions. Ms. Sokoloff’s letter contains a false assertion of fact. I will grant you that her statement that Scalia exercised inexcusably poor judgment is an opinion, as is her belief that Cheney deserves criticism. But her assertion that Cheney invited Scalia on the hunting trip is an assertion of fact. It is false, and the editors are either incompetent at their jobs, or they know it’s false and they printed it anyway.
This is not the first time the paper has done this. Stefan Sharkansky has discussed this phenomenon before with respect to newspaper editorials, and I have discussed it with respect to previous letters to the editor. I get the impression that the print media in general, and the Dog Trainer in particular, doesn’t understand that it has a duty to get the facts right, even on the opinion pages. (My impression was reinforced very recently, when I was complaining to a Dog Trainer reporter about an editorial loaded with factual misstatements, and he responded: “But that’s just an editorial; that’s opinion.”)
It’s time for the Dog Trainer editors to realize that their ethical responsibilities to print the truth extend to the op-ed pages.
I disagree. If six cranks write in saying the earth is flat, that probably means at least 6,000 cranks actually believe it and wonder why the press isn’t covering it. Better to print the letter, then add a brief rebuttal below, IMNSHO.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/22/2004 @ 11:14 pm
But there was no rebuttal. The letter simply created a false impression regarding the facts, with no point of view to the contrary.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2004 @ 6:18 am
X,
A few questions:
1) Do you also support printing op-ed pieces with known false assertions? How about editorials? Or is your support for the publication of false assertions limited to those contained in letters?
2) If the assertion is not corrected immediately below, does that change your mind?
3) How to decide which particular false assertions to print? Newspaper space is scarce, and there are all sorts of loony beliefs out there. Should we print that Elvis is alive? That [insert Presidential candidate here] has deliberately committed premeditated murder? I guarantee that there are people who hold these beliefs.
4) What about when assertions are not obviously false to every rational person (”the world is flat”) but false only to people who are paying attention (”Cheney invited Scalia on the hunting trip”) (”Bush has proposed the complete elimination of taxes on the wealthiest 1%”)? The more plausible the statement, the greater the chance to mislead.
I am all in favor of open and robust debate. But the editors of the letters page choose what to print. They shouldn’t choose arguments based on provably false factual assertions. IMSomewhatHO.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2004 @ 6:44 am
They don’t know enough to recognize that the allegation(s) in Letters are false/misleading. Just because they’re in the news business doesn’t mean that editorial page staff know much about the stories they cover, even contentious ones. Asking that they know enough about every issue that might evoke a reader response–local, national, political–to recognize false claims, may be asking too much. And criticizing a reader/author when a media watchdog complains puts them in a difficult position. Do they clear a follow-up correction with the writer?
Better the correction come from a reader. Let’s see if and how they correct this one.
Comment by Alene — 3/23/2004 @ 10:40 am
“Just because they’re in the news business doesn’t mean that editorial page staff know much about the stories they cover, even contentious ones.”
You may be right about this. So, how about showing the letters they plan to print to the reporters or editors who worked on the relevant story? Are you telling me a major newspaper has no policy in place to make sure they’re not printing factually false statements?
By the way, these editors — the ones who don’t necessarily know much about the stories they cover — these are the same people who write editorials based on those stories, right? That’s what I thought.
It explains *so* much.
Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2004 @ 11:23 am
Absolutely the same folks. It’s not the ignorance I object to; it’s their ignorance of their ignorance.
Am I channeling Rumsfeld, here?
Comment by Alene — 3/23/2004 @ 8:17 pm
1. Letters only, and then only when they represent views that are held widely enough to be worth debating. Op-eds submitted with obviously false statements should be returned to their authors, with an explanation.
2. Yes, but even then I’d prefer to see the letters printed rather than not printed. I’d rather see some crap get through every now and then than have cutting edge ideas stifled because the editors “know” it’s not true - even though, in some cases, it is.
3. I’d print the ones that address false assertions that are popular enough to be worth dealing with and debunking. And for the record, Elvis is alive. Both of them, in fact (Grbac and Costello).
4. The problem with that kind of censorship is that it tends to stifle real debate. If your rule were adopted, I guarantee that any letter suggesting that concealed carry or the death penalty deters crime would not get printed, because everyone on the Times’s staff “knows” them not to be true (and, it’s not 100% clear that they are).
In each of these cases, the best remedy is to print a rebuttal. Failing that, there’s nothing to stop you or anyone else from writing in a rebuttal letter of your own.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/23/2004 @ 11:04 pm
I don’t think you’d be making this argument if your uncle weren’t an op-ed editor at the L.A. Times.
[bans Xrlq from making any more comments]
_________________________________________________
[Just kidding. But you see my point, no?]
Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2004 @ 8:26 pm
I often see letters with false assertions in them in the LAT. They could run them, but with a note underneath stating the truth.
Comment by Amy Alkon — 3/26/2004 @ 7:55 am