Hateful Letters

Dear Dr. Ink:

I live in Eugene, Oregon and am appalled at the Letters to the Editor that are printed in the newspaper. Many of them are hateful, bigoted, extreme viewpoints that seem to exacerbate extreme views in public discourse. I’m interested in finding out what standards are generally used in publishing letters to the editor. What do newspapers generally decide to omit because they are too racist, too ugly, etc. to put in the paper? Does printing a hateful piece of mail give a newspaper’s tacit endorsement of that view? How might we influence that?

Joyce Berman

Answer:

On very rare occasions, Dr. Ink has received a message that reflects a “hateful, bigoted, extreme” point of view. In most cases, Doc hits the delete key. But not always.

One reason to publish such mail is to show that such extreme viewpoints exist, sometimes to track a marginal perspective that is inching its way toward the respectable center.

Another reason is to establish the terms of engagement. The reader may argue, for example, that Israel has no right to exist, or that gay teachers should not be permitted in the classroom, or that every classroom teacher should be armed. This invites counterpoint, either from editorialists at the paper, or other potential letter writers.

Another choice is to delete the more objectionable parts of the message, but to publish the parts that fall within the bounds of civil discourse. Definitions about what constitutes civil discourse are subject to negotiation and debate. Such a process, Doc has come to realize, becomes an education for both the letter writer and the publication.

In this forum, there are exchanges between the readers of Dr. Ink and the responsive Doc, as well as comments from reader to reader. Mainstream print publications should adopt and adapt, when possible, the interactivity that lies at the heart of new media.

But with that dog comes some fleas. Many users of the Internet have libertarian instincts. They are more likely to express opinions outside the political mainstream. They are less likely to tolerate any attempts to draw borders around what they can say, or how they can say it.

The First Amendment, we should recall, would be a cakewalk if people expressed themselves within prescribed boundaries of acceptable speech. Our good fortune as citizens is this: That #1 Amendment was designed to protect speech that many find offensive.

So, yes, by all means, editors should keep a lid on some forms of offensive speech, especially the kinds that might incite violence. In every other case, let’s err on the side of inclusion. And then we can remind readers that the indispensable American virtue -– tolerance –- should not be confused with acceptance or approval.

Publish the edgy stuff if you must. Argue against the ideas contained therein if you do.

[ What are your thoughts on letters to the editor? Your experiences? ]