Conundrum
A letter in today's Whig claimed that of the members of the County Board, 16 live within the city limits, with the implication that this is a problem. A cursory glance at the membership list indicates to me that of the 16, only 9 actually live in the city limits while the other 7 have Quincy postal addresses but live outside the city limits. I may be a bit off on this count because I didn't stop to look up every single address to check whether it's inside.
My question is: does the editorial page staff of the Whig have any obligation to double-check fact claims by letter writers, or should they just print letters even if they have apparent errors?
My question is: does the editorial page staff of the Whig have any obligation to double-check fact claims by letter writers, or should they just print letters even if they have apparent errors?
posted by Allthenewsthatfits at 11:49 AM
3 Comments:
Accuracy has never been a real issue in the rest of the Whig so I don’t know why they would worry about the editorial section
Subscribers to absolute free speech would say the editor would not change any of the letter writer's comments.
The first amendment's strongest proponent, the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, said everyone should have an uninhibited forum, including the right to make a mistake (even to tell a lie). At the same time, though, Black would not have a problem with an Editor's Note to correct an inaccuracy.
The principle reflects the words, paraphrased here, of John Milton who said that truth would always prevail over falsehood if both were given unfettered freedom.
I suppose unless something is straight-up libel they should publish unfiltered. It used to be the saying demonstrably false statements made one look stupid, or at least uninformed. These days I suppose the truth doesn't matter as much as the volume though and being ignorant is a badge of honor not a source of shame.
Post a Comment
<< Home