I live in a rural town that only has one news paper. Technically there are two, but the second is still new and not very influential yet.

Sometimes I feel that because this paper has a virtual monopoly they don't bother chasing stories. Most of the information in the paper comes to them, with bigger stories prompting them to ask a few questions and actually craft an article.

Having said that, the "letters to the editor" section frequently has letters written by elected officials. I personally think this is wrong because it gives them a bully pulpit where they can write anything they want. The newspaper doesn't have to do any research or fact-checking. If anything in the letter is inaccurate or untrue the paper can simply say "We didn't write it, we only published it."

Can anyone here with some background in journalism tell me if it is considered appropriate for letters from elected officials to appear in this manner? Every now an then I could understand, but this is a weekly event that seems unfair both for the reason I mentioned above, but also because it takes up space that could have been used for letters from regular citizens who do not have a platform to speak from as these elected officials do.

It is common practice for elected officials to write editorials or letters to the editor. We get them every week, sometimes several times a week, from local and state officeholders right on up to congressmen. As long as they're addressing issues I don't see a problem, but going into campaign mode crosses the line in my opinion, and I imagine most papers refrain from publishing such submissions close to election days. Both of our Texas senators have a weekly column and I wouldn't be surprised if most others did as well.

Steve

Sure they do it all the time and it is a legitimate way I think for them to get a message to the electorate . I think the more they publish their thoughts and spread some sunshine on the positions they take the better it is for our system. It's when you don't know what they are thinking or planning is when they are most dangerous.

Here's the way I see it. An op-ed page is the place for opinions and editorials. That includes the opinions of the editorial staff of the paper, and the opinions of citizens... including elected officials, who happen to be citizens too. There's nothing particularly wrong about that. All over the country, elected officials write letters to newspapers which are printed either as opinion/editorials or as letters to the paper. Joe Lieberman wrote many letters to the editors of the New York Times and New York Post (despite being the Senator from Connecticut) that were printed. Other elected officials do the same. Sometimes excerpts of speeches of elected officials are printed as op/ed articles. All of that is fine, as long as such articles are labeled as op-ed articles.

What becomes problematic is when news stories begin to become op-ed articles... such as when the writer interjects their own opinion or slant into an article without presenting the opposing view. And that has become a huge problem in American media these days.

A perfect example of this was the Dan Rather scandal with the faked documentation about Bush's national guard service. There, Rather was interjecting his opinion that Bush was a draft-dodger based on these documents without attempting to either verify the documents in question or obtain an opposing viewpoint in his report.

Another perfect example was the story about Gitmo guards flushing a Koran down a toilet. The agency that first reported the story (I think it was Newsweek) never bothered to question the facts because they fit the agency's preconceived notions about the Gitmo guards. Simple questions would have told them that the story was fake and saved them a bit of embarrasement... you know, simple questions like "How does one flush a 300-500 page book down a toilet without getting it stuck in the pipes?" But they had an editorial opinion about Gitmo, and they went with the story because it fit that editorial position.

These are clear cases of editorial opinion affecting the reporting of news and facts. And that is when things become sticky.

But agaim as long as an op/ed piece is labeled as such, I have no problem with a newspaper printing articles written by elected officials. It would be nice if they also printed opposing views, but since it is lables an op/ed piece, that isn't necessary.

If you don't like the slant a particular paper puts in its editorials, do what I do... import a paper from another state. I currently live in New Jersey, and I absolutely hate the liberal stance and slant of the majority of NJ papers, so I get the New York Post, a conservative paper, delivered to my home daily. It costs a bit more, but it saves on stress-related medical bills. Or you can get your news from the web. The Internet has millions of news sources, with all sorts of stances. And internet news sites tend to be more careful of their fatual reporting because anything that isn't factual will be quickly revealed by smart and talented bloggers who know how to find the facts and report them. So there are other options for you to get information that just your local newspaper.

Hope this helps

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I get the New York Post, a conservative paper, delivered to my home daily. It costs a bit more, but it saves on stress-related medical bills.

---

Is that why I always have a bottle of Xanax on hand? :D

As long as a) the writer is identified by his affiliation (elected official, head of an association etc) and b) the opposing viewpoint is given equal time, then this is not a misuse of the press.

OK I'll bite... why is an opposing view point mandatory to publish if freedom of the press is a Constitutional right ? I think the press has the right to the editorial content they choose. I may not like the NY Slimes ,but I shouldn't be able to insist on equal space.

The fairness doctrine applies mostly to political campaigns. The idea being that a politician shouldn't be able to use the press to get free publicity to influence an election.

Hello I:

I think you're pointing out a problem with print and TV journalism in general. What they do ISN'T news. It's pablum and propaganda. Investigative reporting is a thing of the past in those media. I agree, they put out what they're handed.

As a consequesnce, they are declining rapidly. I don't know if they sowed the seeds of their own destruction or they're victims of the marketplace. I think it's the latter.

Investigative journalism IS happening in the blogasphere.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

The fairness doctrine applies mostly to political campaigns. The idea being that a politician shouldn't be able to use the press to get free publicity to influence an election.

---

But it was also only an FCC rule for broadcast licensees. For some reason someone didn't think broadcasters had the same free speech rights as newspapers and magazines.

Thanks for the replies, a lot of good things to think about in there. I think the root of my problem is that our local paper is simply printing the letters each week and not digging into the story themselves. We are just coming off a recall attempt on our County Executive, which failed under "odd" circumstances. There is a long letter to the editor from the County Executive. This is by far the biggest story in our little county right now. I just think it deserved "story" status with interviews, fact-checking, etc. But obviously from the comments here, it is accepted practice for elected officials so that is good to know.

One more reason I love this site... thanks everyone.

If the recall is legit then keep the pressure on . Write your own letter to the editor . Attend county board meetings and get your neighbors to go also . Find out if the opposition is organized and sign on. You have a lot of power to influence at the local level. Don't give up the fight .

I hope it isn't a matter of the newspaper being in cahoots with the elected officials. If the fox is guarding the hen house and not publishing others' letters, it stinks.

It does sound weird for the paper to not be treating a recall attempt as newsworthy. It SHOULD be reported with in-depth coverage of both points of view and fact-checking. That would be good newsreporting.

But Op/Ed articles don't need "fact checking" because they aren't facts... they are opinions.

Elliot