Editorial/Opinion:
Doug Clark, The High Point Enterprise, and Censorship.
| The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines
censoring as: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
The same dictionary also defines editing as: |
I recently sent the following letter by e-mail to the High Point
Enterprise, for publication in their "Letters To The Editor" section:
To: letterbox@hpe.com
I see the High Point Enterprise is still using the out of date noise contour
map designed to mislead the public. The 24-hour noise averaging method that
map is based on is seriously flawed. Here's why: This was posted on the Greensboro News and Record's FedEx message board, and is the best description to date of why the 24 hour noise averaging method is flawed. These flights will take place at night, and be spaced an average of two to three minutes apart. If you have eight hours of noise, and average that eight hours over a twenty-four hour period, you immediately cut the "average" noise level by a third. You don't try to sleep 24 hours a day, so why measure noise and average it over 24 hours? If you were to measure the single event noise level, those noise contours would stretch out almost to Main Street in High Point. Please quit perpetuating these out of date maps that have been proven over and over to be flawed. Let's be more realistic about the problem.
|
The next day, I received the following e-mail from Doug Clark of the HPE:
| Thank you for your letter, which we will publish Saturday.
However, we will have to remove the portion that quotes from a comment posted
on the News and Record message board. I believe you have made your point
in your own words anyway.
I also will add an editor's note stating that our map is based on up-to-date FAA information. |
(Note: The map published in Wednesday's paper appears to be the same map
published by the Enterprise over a year ago. Stating that they are using
an up-to-date map appears to be an attempt to discredit my opening
statement.
Update: 11/10/01 - The Enterprise published on it's front page a "new"
map based upon the same flawed 24-hour averaging method in today's paper,
along with a headline saying that no High Point homes would be eligible for
compensation, yet several High Point roads are inside the contours and marked
"single residence.")
A little while later, I responded to Mr. Clark's e-mail with an attempt to replace the quote with a paragraph that conveyed the same meaning but in a different way so as to not be quoting the News and record, which appeared to be the justification for removing it. I also clarified the map issue slightly and corrected the actual number of hours the noise would be taking place:
Mr Clark; If you feel it necessary to alter my letter to remove a quote from another newspaper, then please substitute this revised letter instead: --- I see the High Point Enterprise is still using the out of date noise contour map designed by the FAA to mislead the public. The 24-hour noise averaging method that map is based on is seriously flawed. Here's why: If someone fires a gun right next to your ear, and tells you to average the loudness of the sound over 24 hours, you'll see that it wasn't very loud after all. That's the logic the FAA and PTIA are asking us to accept. These flights will take place at night, and be spaced an average of two to three minutes apart. If you have six hours of noise, and average that six hours over a twenty-four hour period, you immediately cut the "average" noise level to a fourth, and alter the "noise contours" accordingly. You don't try to sleep 24 hours a day, so why measure six hours of noise and then average it over 24 hours? If you were to measure the single event noise level like OSHA does in manufacturing, then those FAA noise contours would stretch out almost to Main Street in High Point. If this is not so, then why are homeowners thirteen miles out from the airport in Louisville being compensated for noise? Please quit perpetuating these deceptive maps that have been proven over and over to be flawed. Let's be more realistic about the problem, because the taxpayers deserve to know what they are going to be forced to pay for, should the hub be built. ----- If you still feel it necessary to edit my letter, please include a statement to that fact.
Thank you. |
Doug Clark responded with this e-mail, in which he states they edit just about every single letter they print:
| I already have your letter laid out on my Saturday
page. We note in our information box, which we publish every day, that we
reserve the right to edit all letters for length and clarity. In your case,
material from another newspaper was edited out. We do not make a note every
time we edit a letter, which we do in just about every letter we publish
to some extent or other.
Doug Clark High Point Enterprise |
(Note: The underlining was added for emphasis. Call it "editing" his letter.)
My next e-mail was:
To: "Doug Clark" <dclark@hpe.com> Mr. Clark; I'm sure revising the letter to the new version I sent you would probably not take more than a few minutes. If you are going to censor my letter, which I believe your removing the part you say you are going to will change the clarity of the letter, then please do not publish it. I will submit it to the News and Record instead. Thank you.
|
His response:
| I am sorry to appear stubborn on this point. We're
not talking only about a matter of time, although I am now working on Sunday
pages and time is important. It is also a matter of layout. Replacing your
previous letter with a version that will take up more space creates a domino
effect. It would require changing other elements on the page. That becomes
very time-consuming. I simply don't have time to lay out the page all over
again.
You may call it censoring. The fact is it is editing, which we do all along. We assume writers understand this, because we tell them ahead of time that we do it - that is, if they read the information box we publish every day. In your case, we simply are not going to publish a long passage from another newspaper. As for withdrawing the letter, it is too late. You sent it to us, and it is ours to do with as we wish. I told you in my first email this morning that I had placed it on our Saturday page. There it remains. In my opinion, it still conveys your point. I regret hard feelings about this, but I simply could not publish a page every day if writers made the editing decisions. Doug Clark |
He also sent this e-mail:
| I hope you understand that what was deleted from yours was material lifted from another newspaper. It also happened to be anonymous. We don't publish anonymous letters in our newspaper, and I will not publish anonymous material from another newspaper. What you wrote in your own words is preserved and will be published Saturday. |
I can't help but feel that if you write something based upon what someone else said, it really helps the reader to know what the other person said. That's why I put the quote in the letter to begin with. I was perfectly willing to edit the letter to convey the same meaning but in a different way, but that was unacceptable to them. The editing reduced the meaning of what I had to say.
Here's an example of what editing the above e-mail Mr. Clark sent to me can do to the meaning
| We don't publish ... letters in our newspaper, and I will not publish... material from another newspaper. |
See how the meaning was changed around by simply "editing" out a few choice words from his e-mail? This is how I feel about him removing an entire paragraph from my letter.
I questioned him about the policy on quotes with this:
So if I quote, say a poem from an unknown author, you would refuse to quote that, even if that was the main point of the letter? |
To which Doug Clark responded:
| We don't print poems. We prefer writers to make their points in their own words. |
At this point, I quit exchanging e-mails with Mr. Clark, deciding instead to print the full letter, and all exchanges, here.
Now, I do understand their need and desire to edit some letters, but I also believe they should allow the author of the letters to approve any changes before publishing the letter, to insure it still conveys the original thought with the same clarity as the author intended. If they and the author can not come to an agreement on the final form on the letter, then either the letter doesn't get published, or it gets published along with a notice that a particular letter was edited. A blanket note saying some letters get edited but not specifying which ones do and which ones do not leaves the reader wondering what or who to believe.
(It should be noted that the Enterprise employs a writer who regularly pulls
humor items off the Internet and includes them in his column as if it were
original material. Also, the widely published Ann Landers frequently quotes
whole poems and essays from other people in her column.)
As for his stance on quotes, I offer the following facts:
In the Thursday, November 8th's Letters column, one letter started out with
this quote:
As Yogi Berra was fond of saying, "It's deja vu all over again."
In Wednesday the 7th's column, a letter included this quote:
Clark's first way to respond said, "Proponents insist that we have to
play the game."
A letter to the Editor on November 6th said;
He states, "Mexicans (or Spanish, if you prefer) have changed the American
way of life. This change is not a good change, either." - another quote.
In an editorial on the 5th of November they quoted:
"We need to get money in the hands of people who didn't get any benefit
from the rebate before," Edwards said in a news release issued Friday.
"Particularly since we are talking about moderate- to low-income people,
the great likelihood is they'll put that money right back into the economy.
A commentary by Chuck Wilson the same day said:
Martin Marty, a longtime observer of American church life, has written:
"If there are no atheists in foxholes, neither did there seem to be many
in the stairwells, corridors and streets where panicked people cowered or
ran. Some struggled for words, saying they found the language of prayer distant.
Others drew on rich vocabularies, nurtured in sanctuaries for generations."
The commentary went on to include several more paragraphs of quotes.
This is just in the previous three days. Apparently, it's ok to quote as
long as the quote doesn't come from the competition, otherwise censoring
it is simply called "editing."
Editorial/Opinion.