The Dubuque Telegraph Herald
Power of the Press
1.) On May 8, 2004 The Telegraph Herald published a letter, author unknown, about sexual abuse scandal in a local church.
2.)The TH prior to publication confirmed authorship by phone, a national routine confirmation procedure.
3.)After publication, the editor of the TH received an e-mail from an informant(unknown) who said the author was using a fictitious name.
4.)The TH now claims the published letter was a fraud as the name was fictitious, the phone number unlisted, and the address incorrect.
5.) The TH sent a message to the e-mail address from which the letter originated, received a reply and was assured authorship was correct.
6.) The TH demanded additional proof of authorship and name and addresses. It was not forthcoming.
APPRAISAL:
1.) No mention about the facts of the letters subject was given by the editor.
3.) Who was this informant? No name and no address was given, and by TH standards, a requirement to be met and published.
4.) Yet, the TH earlier confirmed valid contact with the author. Which is it?
5.) Would a photo copy of Social Security Card and current drivers license do?
6.) Lastly, what crime was committed, who committed it, and if it's such a serious crime, why didn't the TH call the police?
REPLY:
Thursday, June 10, 2004
To: bcooper@wcinet.com
Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor
Mr. Brian Cooper,
You gave no opinion as to validity of facts in that letter and your concern should be of the actual facts presented in the letter not as much as a pseudonym or address used by the letter writer. Your policy to disclose personal information as you do and post it on the Internet also, could very well have been seen as a threat to the writer.
Our Federal government and state legislators, along with most womens and children's organizations, schools, and the vast majority of national newspapers believe and advise the public to NOT supply addresses to those we are not familiar with if it is going to be disclosed to the general public. The ACLU also does not believe doing so is good policy.
By all means, what is published that is purported to be fact should be questioned carefully. Facts should always be backed up with legitimate references to support those facts. Often opinion and fact are intertwined in such a manner that references still should be provided, not only by an individual supplying the press with information, but also by the press publishing information to the public.
THE TH REPLY:
Mon, 14 Jun 2004 From: "Brian Cooper" To:wmn@email.com
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor
Mr. Noyes:
Thanks for your message. We appear to have different perspectives on the need for accuracy
and credibility in terms of authorship. One of the facts associated with a letter is the author's identity.
If everyone followed the guidelines of the ACLU and the other groups you cited, communities would not have telephone directories or many public records.
Submitting a letter is voluntary; folks who are concerned about disclosure of their address have the option of expressing their opinions through other forums than our letters section.
I do not think it is proper for anyone to give themselves permission to "opt out" by providing false information.
Brian Cooper
Executive Editor/Editorial Board chairman Telegraph Herald
APPRAISAL & COMMENTS:
NOTE: The above Email from Mr. Cooper overlooks the content of the my letter to him, just as he did to the author of the original letter to the editor. My letter did in fact mention the need for "credibility in terms of authorship", although he implies it did not.
PROOF of the credibility and authorship of everything published in the TH is HIS responsibility. It is not his duty to publish contributors addresses to the public.
From his statement I can only conclude Mr. Cooper believes the United States Justice Dept. as well as other Government agencies are out to corrupt our country and that the privacy and safety recommended by Womens and Children's Welfare and abuse organizations are not needed or wanted by American citizens.
I doubt also that Mr. Cooper has notified all the nations newspapers that they are wrong and must follow his example. While I'm not always the biggest fan of the ACLU, we definitely need them to assist in keeping our freedoms.
"Addresses specify letter authorship"
Brian Coopers editorial of June 15, 2004, tells us about his stay in a hotel and being mistaken for someone else. A long drawn out story, he accepts a package opens it, finds it was not for him, belittles the desk clerk, pats himself on the back for being superior to the hotel staff.
Mr, Cooper then proceeds to rationalize his reasons for ignoring the privacy, courtesy, and safety of authors of letters to the editor.
The TH, unlike almost all other newspapers in the nation, publishes authors' addresses along with their names. Why? The TH claims to ask for addresses to identify authors. In the real world the TH is making targets of those people.
THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR PUBLISHING THE ADDRESS. Not even a good reason.
Giving an address with a submission is for the publishers liability concerns. A response to a letter to the editor should be done with a "Letter to the Editor".
REPLY to: bcooper@wcinet.com "Addresses specify letter authorship"
Interesting story, Mr. Cooper.
I have had accounts, (banks, shopping, credit card, inn reservations, even medical prescriptions) confused with others with the same name. Although my name is somewhat unusual, there were/are two others with the same first name, middle initial, surname and also jr., and none are related, yet they live/lived within a small suburb of less than a 10 mile radius. People are more intelligent than you seem be giving them credit for, and do understand no name is unique.
The following are a couple of differences in my approach to handling this issue. I would have simply told the employee, "No, I am not that individual. There has evidentially been an error somewhere". By doing this, I did not belittle the clerk or pat myself on the back for being, how did you put it, "not to brag that some of my hunches are correct".
As a matter of fact, on the occasion of the prescription mix-up, the wife of the other person just happened to be in line and overheard my conversation with the pharmacist. We all got a chuckle out of it.
It is necessary that the readers know that the opinions are from people like themselves. It adds to the validity of the comment. However, the validity of the CONTENTS of said letter as does the identity of the author rest only on the editor, the publisher, the press, and it always has. Do not blame your contributors for your failures.
And yes, as editor/publisher you and only you have the power to print what the public reads/sees in your paper. If you want to make people stand on their head to get their opinion published, legally you can do so. That does not make it right.
An inherent problem you create publishing peoples addresses is that you invite/force a confrontation with the author of an opinion if someone disagrees. Sadly, some of those people opposing the opinion may and sometimes do resort to violence. Those that do agree are also made to feel they should personally contact the author. What makes you believe the author wants to be bothered? This is not what a "Letters to the Editor" is about or should be about. NO one should be writing or calling or knocking on the door of the author of a Letter To The Editor. Replies or responses are supposed to be through the same medium, a Letter to the Editor! Capice?
I will accept your "hotel" story as fact, but it is a big stretch to imagine it has anything to do with a letter to the editor. I believe it is about 'tooting your own horn', since it was published on the same day your email to me arrived indicating to me your belief that the United States Federal Government Agencies, Iowa State Legislators, women and children abuse agencies, the Nation's schools, newspapers and rights organizations, are all wrong about not publishing home addresses because of the potential for crime or violence, and your solution to be the correct one. I believe, you need to corral that ego.
A statement made in the editorial leads me to believe that "outsiders" are not welcome contributors. So be it, this is my opinion from another forum. This one so far, allows everyone the privilege of free speech, not just you and those sanctioned by you.
~Bill Noyes - Sunday, September 03, 2006 ~
1.) On May 8, 2004 The Telegraph Herald published a letter, author unknown, about sexual abuse scandal in a local church.
2.)The TH prior to publication confirmed authorship by phone, a national routine confirmation procedure.
3.)After publication, the editor of the TH received an e-mail from an informant(unknown) who said the author was using a fictitious name.
4.)The TH now claims the published letter was a fraud as the name was fictitious, the phone number unlisted, and the address incorrect.
5.) The TH sent a message to the e-mail address from which the letter originated, received a reply and was assured authorship was correct.
6.) The TH demanded additional proof of authorship and name and addresses. It was not forthcoming.
APPRAISAL:
1.) No mention about the facts of the letters subject was given by the editor.
3.) Who was this informant? No name and no address was given, and by TH standards, a requirement to be met and published.
4.) Yet, the TH earlier confirmed valid contact with the author. Which is it?
5.) Would a photo copy of Social Security Card and current drivers license do?
6.) Lastly, what crime was committed, who committed it, and if it's such a serious crime, why didn't the TH call the police?
REPLY:
Thursday, June 10, 2004
To: bcooper@wcinet.com
Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor
Mr. Brian Cooper,
You gave no opinion as to validity of facts in that letter and your concern should be of the actual facts presented in the letter not as much as a pseudonym or address used by the letter writer. Your policy to disclose personal information as you do and post it on the Internet also, could very well have been seen as a threat to the writer.
Our Federal government and state legislators, along with most womens and children's organizations, schools, and the vast majority of national newspapers believe and advise the public to NOT supply addresses to those we are not familiar with if it is going to be disclosed to the general public. The ACLU also does not believe doing so is good policy.
By all means, what is published that is purported to be fact should be questioned carefully. Facts should always be backed up with legitimate references to support those facts. Often opinion and fact are intertwined in such a manner that references still should be provided, not only by an individual supplying the press with information, but also by the press publishing information to the public.
THE TH REPLY:
Mon, 14 Jun 2004 From: "Brian Cooper" To:wmn@email.com
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor
Mr. Noyes:
Thanks for your message. We appear to have different perspectives on the need for accuracy
and credibility in terms of authorship. One of the facts associated with a letter is the author's identity.
If everyone followed the guidelines of the ACLU and the other groups you cited, communities would not have telephone directories or many public records.
Submitting a letter is voluntary; folks who are concerned about disclosure of their address have the option of expressing their opinions through other forums than our letters section.
I do not think it is proper for anyone to give themselves permission to "opt out" by providing false information.
Brian Cooper
Executive Editor/Editorial Board chairman Telegraph Herald
APPRAISAL & COMMENTS:
NOTE: The above Email from Mr. Cooper overlooks the content of the my letter to him, just as he did to the author of the original letter to the editor. My letter did in fact mention the need for "credibility in terms of authorship", although he implies it did not.
PROOF of the credibility and authorship of everything published in the TH is HIS responsibility. It is not his duty to publish contributors addresses to the public.
From his statement I can only conclude Mr. Cooper believes the United States Justice Dept. as well as other Government agencies are out to corrupt our country and that the privacy and safety recommended by Womens and Children's Welfare and abuse organizations are not needed or wanted by American citizens.
I doubt also that Mr. Cooper has notified all the nations newspapers that they are wrong and must follow his example. While I'm not always the biggest fan of the ACLU, we definitely need them to assist in keeping our freedoms.
"Addresses specify letter authorship"
Brian Coopers editorial of June 15, 2004, tells us about his stay in a hotel and being mistaken for someone else. A long drawn out story, he accepts a package opens it, finds it was not for him, belittles the desk clerk, pats himself on the back for being superior to the hotel staff.
Mr, Cooper then proceeds to rationalize his reasons for ignoring the privacy, courtesy, and safety of authors of letters to the editor.
The TH, unlike almost all other newspapers in the nation, publishes authors' addresses along with their names. Why? The TH claims to ask for addresses to identify authors. In the real world the TH is making targets of those people.
THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR PUBLISHING THE ADDRESS. Not even a good reason.
Giving an address with a submission is for the publishers liability concerns. A response to a letter to the editor should be done with a "Letter to the Editor".
REPLY to: bcooper@wcinet.com "Addresses specify letter authorship"
Interesting story, Mr. Cooper.
I have had accounts, (banks, shopping, credit card, inn reservations, even medical prescriptions) confused with others with the same name. Although my name is somewhat unusual, there were/are two others with the same first name, middle initial, surname and also jr., and none are related, yet they live/lived within a small suburb of less than a 10 mile radius. People are more intelligent than you seem be giving them credit for, and do understand no name is unique.
The following are a couple of differences in my approach to handling this issue. I would have simply told the employee, "No, I am not that individual. There has evidentially been an error somewhere". By doing this, I did not belittle the clerk or pat myself on the back for being, how did you put it, "not to brag that some of my hunches are correct".
As a matter of fact, on the occasion of the prescription mix-up, the wife of the other person just happened to be in line and overheard my conversation with the pharmacist. We all got a chuckle out of it.
It is necessary that the readers know that the opinions are from people like themselves. It adds to the validity of the comment. However, the validity of the CONTENTS of said letter as does the identity of the author rest only on the editor, the publisher, the press, and it always has. Do not blame your contributors for your failures.
And yes, as editor/publisher you and only you have the power to print what the public reads/sees in your paper. If you want to make people stand on their head to get their opinion published, legally you can do so. That does not make it right.
An inherent problem you create publishing peoples addresses is that you invite/force a confrontation with the author of an opinion if someone disagrees. Sadly, some of those people opposing the opinion may and sometimes do resort to violence. Those that do agree are also made to feel they should personally contact the author. What makes you believe the author wants to be bothered? This is not what a "Letters to the Editor" is about or should be about. NO one should be writing or calling or knocking on the door of the author of a Letter To The Editor. Replies or responses are supposed to be through the same medium, a Letter to the Editor! Capice?
I will accept your "hotel" story as fact, but it is a big stretch to imagine it has anything to do with a letter to the editor. I believe it is about 'tooting your own horn', since it was published on the same day your email to me arrived indicating to me your belief that the United States Federal Government Agencies, Iowa State Legislators, women and children abuse agencies, the Nation's schools, newspapers and rights organizations, are all wrong about not publishing home addresses because of the potential for crime or violence, and your solution to be the correct one. I believe, you need to corral that ego.
A statement made in the editorial leads me to believe that "outsiders" are not welcome contributors. So be it, this is my opinion from another forum. This one so far, allows everyone the privilege of free speech, not just you and those sanctioned by you.
~Bill Noyes - Sunday, September 03, 2006 ~
posted by wmjr at
4:49 AM
<< Home