Forget ‘trust’: Verify
I hadn’t heard of the “Ellie Light” letters to the editor before today, but the story of the man who says he wrote them was interesting nonetheless.
I’ve railed against news web sites that let readers post anonymous comments after stories. The practice goes against long-held standards we use in print – vetting for libel or nastiness, verifying authorship, maintaining civil discourse.
Recently, a lawyer told me and my colleagues that newspapers don’t have time to call the writer of each letter to the editor and shouldn’t be expected to.
I know that’s not true, and said so.
I was an editor at a weekly newspaper in upstate New York. I called for each and every writer, or the letter didn’t run. My colleague made fun of me for trying to reach the name at the bottom of the form letter from the Girl Scouts.
Readers should expect that newspapers have made a reasonable attempt, at least, to verify the names behind the opinions on their pages. It’s a basic duty.
What happened at the newspapers that ran “Ellie Light” letters? Did they try to contact the writer? Did Mr. Steward lie to them?
I’m eager to read explanations from editors whose publications were duped, namely: How can we trust your pages next time?
Here’s one from Ben Smith of Politico, who didn’t mind that he couldn’t verify who wrote the letter.
Kudos to Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Sabrina Eaton, who was more skeptical than opinion page editors across the country should have been.
- Andy Schotz, chairman, SPJ Ethics Committee
January 28th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
When I was an editorial page editor, I, or my intern, contacted virtually every letter writer and verified their identity. The only ones who got a pass were the “frequent flyers” who wrote so often and had such distinct styles (syntax, handwriting, stationery) that there was no doubt as to their identity. I not only asked if they had written the letter, but that they tell me what it is about. If they didn’t include a phone number, I would look it up (I even used voter records to track some down). It took some work, but I kept out quite a few fakers (who received lifetime bans from the page for their perfidity, and were listed on a wall of shame in my cubicle) and maintained the page’s credibility on my watch. The funniest one I ever caught was someone claiming to be inmates in the state prison (yes, they signed the letter with two names).
January 29th, 2010 at 3:19 am
Bravo. That’s exactly the commitment we need. I’m baffled by editors who don’t care if something as essential as a letter writer’s identity is right, wrong or uncertain. Your tactics of research and quizzing the person at the other end of the phone are exemplary. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
January 29th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Generally I agree, and have always thought that online comments to news stories should be treated more like printed letters – both for content and identification. Just as vulgar and defamatory online comments will generally be moderated, edited and removed (or should be) as they would be in print, the identity of the commenter should be open to scrutiny.
Curiously, though, I wonder if the scrutiny given to letter writers should be applied to anonymous sources in news stories. Different outlets have varying standards to allow unnamed sources. But if the thesis about unsigned/unverified letters is that they undermine the readers’ trust, why wouldn’t the propagation of unnamed sources, especially on topics that aren’t dealing with imminent danger and national security, do the same? Just a hypothetical, I suppose.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:43 am
Scott, that’s a good question. Anonymity should not be granted lightly. There needs to be a legitimate reason, such as safety or an actual chance of reprisal. The information should be important enough and of enough public interest that you’d allow that unusual step. It’s best to explain why someone is anonymous, with some context about the speaker’s connection or motivation. Compare those standards to anonymous comments allowed after news stories. They generate mouse clicks, create a stir and … well, I can’t think of any good reasons, but there are plenty of terrible ones.