Opinion Exchange » Chris Mautone

A dubious tactic (UPDATED)

Chris Mautone — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:54:21 +0000

In an April 1 post, “In search of a statistic,” I noted that, in response to columnist Noreen O’Donnell’s citing of a statistic provided by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we received the following from Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, a self-described “association of restaurants and on-premise retailers committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages”:

“To the Editor:
One of Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s favorite talking points (“those convicted of drunken driving had driven drunk more than 87 times before their first arrest.”) goes so far as to accuse Americans of criminal acts with no proof to back up the claim (“Keeping drunken drivers off the road – what do the experts say?,” March 11).
The truth is that the widely-publicized figure is based on rough estimates from self-reported data—commonly criticized as being unreliable—collected from a small sample 14 years ago. Even the study’s own authors admit the estimates are “crude.” Yet, MADD has dubbed it “fact.”
Before advocating for new laws, we need an accurate, up-to-date measure of drunk driving behavior. It’s reckless to act based on one thing, when the reality is another.”

I noted that, based on a Google search, this group apparently sends the identical letter to any newspaper that prints the MADD statistic (only changing the name of the responded-to article in parentheses), so it wasn’t a surprise when this morning I got this letter again – this time in response to our Sunday editorial, “DWI’s pain,” about the recent incident involving Diane Schuler who, according to toxicology reports, had the equivalent of 10 drinks in her system, as well as marijuana, when she drove the wrong way on the Taconic Parkway and caused a crash that killed eight people, four of them children. But I found myself taken aback, anyway. The merits of the study in question are certainly worth examining, as I pointed out in my earlier post. But does the American Beverage Institute ever read the articles, editorials, etc. that it responds to before sending out its form-letter denunciation of one DWI study? Westchester residents remain shocked, saddened and downright angry more than two weeks after this incident, judging by the letters and online comments we’ve received, not to mention the rash of recent DWI-caused fatalities in our area. ABI doesn’t take any of that into context in its single-minded determination to debunk one statistic from MADD - and to fall back on the old “more study is needed” argument, one supposes, in order to hinder efforts intended to better prevent DWI (so much for the “responsible serving of adult beverages”). Certainly, alcoholic-beverage-sellers have a right to state their case, but ABI’s method comes off as callous and uncaring in the face of an especially horrific DWI occurrence.

UPDATE: This morning I received a response to this post from ABI’s Sarah Longwell (including a PDF file of the original study from which the “87 times” figure is derived: 87-times-study-zador-2000 ):

For the record, we at ABI do read every article, editorial, letter to the editor, etc. We too have been following the response to the tragic Taconic Parkway crash. In doing so, we saw MADD’s press release which exploited the tragedy to call for two things: ignition interlocks for all convicted DUI offenders regardless of BAC level and alcohol-sensors in all cars. Then, we saw your editorial which took the bait. The editorial repeats the 87 times statistic as though it were incontrovertible.

As your editorial discussed, the drunk driving problem has been greatly reduced since MADD was created and in 2008, alcohol-impaired fatalities were at their lowest levels in decades. MADD knows this, but still wants to garner support for extreme policies (like alcohol-sensors in all cars). So they use scare tactics like the bogus 87 times statistic to scare the public into believing that alcohol sensors in all cars are a good idea. Yes, whenever we see the statistic in print, we challenge it. That’s a pretty logical response, wouldn’t you say?

ABI has no interest in hindering “efforts intended to better prevent DWI”. We simply disagree with MADD on the way to end the drunk driving problem. We advocate for targeting the hard-core offenders who cause the vast majority of fatalities, while MADD is focused on punishing those who may have enjoyed one drink prior to driving (hence, the campaign for alcohol-sensors in all cars).

I do apologize for sending the same letter twice, but you used the same bad statistic twice.

Best,
Sarah Longwell

Healthy debate?

Chris Mautone — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:28:56 +0000

We’ve received quite a few letters over the past few weeks regarding President Barack Obama’s plan for health-care reform now being debated in Congress. Both sides have been “rallying the troops” and arming them with talking points. So how are the two sides doing?

In terms of sheer volume, the letters in favor of legislative reform outweigh those opposed. However, many of these pro-reform letters are form letters and/or letters generated by Web sites and therefore will not be published. Several local chapters of the League of Women Voters sent us identical letters advocating “single-payer, expanded and improved Medicare for all,” although one chapter did take the time to state a watered-down version of the League’s position in their own words, thereby making the letter publishable. (Once again, I marvel at the fact that someone can send us a mass-distributed pre-written letter and not realize that others will do the same.) The Web-generated letters (that is, sent via a Web site that allows one to cut-and-paste – or write their own words – into a form that is automatically sent to one’s local newspaper, legislators, etc. based on ZIP code, while making it look like the letter came from the writer’s e-mail address) vary in quality – everything from wooden-sounding recitation of the legislation’s benefits, to lengthy descriptions of the writer’s personal struggles with the health-care system, to the three-sentence “WE CAN’T WAIT! We need reform NOW! PLEASE VOTE FOR THIS BILL!” – type letters signed with names like “Mr. Susan Jones” because apparently the Web site involved automatically generates an honorific that defaults to “Mr.” if the writer doesn’t choose. (And I’m still trying to track down this site! If anyone out there can identify it, drop me a line, please.)

For the most part, those letters on the opposing side tend to be from our “regulars,” and although the talking points are as predictable as those coming from the “pro” side, at least the writers are putting them into their own words, and as regulars, I trust that they are, in fact, readers of this newspaper and/or Web site. (The people using those Web-generated sites don’t even need to know the name of our paper; they just enter their ZIP and click.) Of course, this means that the letters we actually publish on this issue are skewed toward the “anti” side; hopefully, any “pros” reading this will decide to write some original letters and send them to us directly so that we can present both sides of the argument.

The “antis,” however, have recently indulged in a letter-writing campaign of their own, bombarding our Rockland office with letters angrily protesting that local members of Congress have not scheduled any “Town Hall” meetings there to discuss the health-care issue. Considering that recent Town Hall meeting elsewhere have been disrupted by protests organized by industry-funded groups such as Americans for Prosperity, one can certainly wonder about the spontaneity of these letters as well.

In any case, expect to see much more on this topic on our Editorial Page and online in the coming weeks.

“Dear Whatever Newspaper This Is . . .”

Chris Mautone — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:04:15 +0000

I frequently gripe here about all the form letters and letter-writing campaigns that clog up our letters e-mailbox. Today, I’ll demonstrate step-by-step how this works, and hopefully show why it’s such a nuisance (and why such letters are generally ignored by editors).

This morning in the e-mailbox, I discovered 30 or so letters, nearly all from outside The Journal News readership area, regarding Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier being held captive by Hamas. These letters are being generated by visitors to the Web site of The Israel Project, a Washington, D.C. – based think tank. It’s a fairly easy process: From the homepage, go to “Take Action” and click “Send a letter to your editor” in the drop-down menu. There you will find a list of recent form letters ready to send (the Gilad Shalit one is the third one down). When you click on “Gilad Shalit – Three Years in Captivity,” you will then be asked to provide your ZIP code. Whether you enter a ZIP code from White Plains, Brooklyn or elsewhere in the tri-state area, the site will provide you with a list of 78 newspapers, including Spanish-language papers, stretching from central Connecticut up to Kingston, NY, and down through most of New Jersey. It is then up to the writer to choose which of these to submit his/her letter to. Problem is, all of them are “pre-checked,” so if the writer does nothing, the letter will go to all 78 newspapers! The writer is then required to fill out his/her name, address, etc., and, most important, their e-mail address, so that the letter appearing in the newspapers’ e-mailboxes will look as if they came directly from the writer.

The sample letter, 672 words long, begins “Now is an important anniversary that we must not forget. Iran-backed Hamas has held Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit for 3 years after wounding and kidnapping him from Israel in an unprovoked cross-border attack near the Gaza border.” Underneath are the following “Message Tips”:
* Include a phone number where you can be reached in case the newspaper needs to verify your information.

Do not cut/paste the talking points above. Put them in your own words to increase the chance that they will be published. (Let’s see: About two-thirds of the letters we received did at least shorten the given material into something resembling a 250-word letter to the editor; the rest merely cut-and-pasted the entire thing.)
So how did this letter-writing campaign work out? Well, you’re not going to see any of these in the pages of The Journal News – the “writers” are not local, and few of them took the time to write about the issue in their own words. I imagine that the other 77 newspapers on the list will treat them similarly. Again, makes you wonder why such organizations, no matter what they advocate, waste their time and that of their supporters in setting up these transparent camapigns that aren’t going to get past any semi-observant editor.

J’accuse (vaguely)

Chris Mautone — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:21:51 +0000

Apparently, there are still some hard feelings regarding this week’s school elections, judging by two letters I received. One was from a woman who claimed that on Election Day (I am withholding the name of the school district): “. . . one of the candidates for School Board was out there at a polling location, pumping hands, asking for support and thanking people for their votes as they left. I hear that the candidate’s campaign material was even on display at the PTA’s Children’s Voting program. Was it illegal? Inappropriate? Unethical? Do the opposing candidates wonder if they should have been out there, too? Did it actually affect the vote? I don’t have the answers to these questions. But I would certainly appreciate it if the current School Board would see to it that rules are laid out and enforced in the future. . .”

One would hope that the writer reported such behavior to the appropriate people to prevent any possible wrongdoing in the future. But her implication that an unnamed candidate stepped out of bounds is inappropriate for the Opinion Page – by not naming the candidate in question, she unfairly casts suspicion on all the candidates in that race. And had she named the candidate, we would not be able to use the letter because it would just be hearsay. (I did end up sending it to our News department, but, again, unless the writer made a formal complaint to a governing body, there really isn’t anything we can do to corroborate her charges.)

As for the second letter, I don’t have to withhold the name of the district becuase the writer did not provide one. Nor did he give us his address, hometown or phone number (he did sign a name to it, though). Here, verbatim, is what he had to say: “To all those (including myself) who showed no reaction to a woman shouting heil hitler and givinge a salute to a jewish guy after she voted. We should be ashamed of ourselves. With Memorial Day approaching I wonder what my granddad would say to all us gutless folks.” Well, OK, if such an incident did take place as the writer described, then it’s a shame that no one called out the woman for her actions. But what is the purpose of sending us this accusatory letter without even naming the district in question? We’re certainly not going to publish it; nor does it have any news value without us knowing where this took place. (And even if we did know, again, unless some kind of formal complaint was filed, it’s just hearsay.) If this writer wants to assuage his guilt over being “gutless,” maybe he can join or start a group to address the tensions that apparently exist among this district’s various members – this letter serves no purpose at all.

Not helping the cause any

Chris Mautone — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:32:15 +0000

I’ve written before about letter-writing campaigns organized by advocacy groups, where we receive either bunches of identical form letters (immediately disregarded), or short, usually poorly written, letters that were likely generated by the group’s Web site. From the few such sites that I’ve seen, the latter seem to work by having the writer enter his/her comments and then supplying a ZIP code, which automatically forwards the letter (from the writer’s e-mail address) to the newspaper(s) circulated in that ZIP – no need for the writer to even bother knowing what his hometown paper is! (And no way for us to trace the letter back to the organization.)

I remain baffled as to why such groups think this is an effective strategy – it’s easy enough for editors to spot such campaigns and disregard them. For example, lately we’ve been getting batches of letters from Westchester residents advocating for a variety of progressive causes such as greenhouse-gas reduction and health-care reform – all sent directly to Nancy Cutler, our Rockland editorial page editor (who hasn’t received any from Rockland residents!). Apparently all generated from one particular “umbrella” advocacy organization, since they’re all being sent to the same (wrong) person. Plus, many of the letters are so poorly written that it would be difficult to render them suitable for publication, and were we to try anyway, they would probably do the cause more harm than good. Here’s what an “education” advocate sent us today, verbatim:

“Education is an important part of life, with it one may advance in one s career path to levels unataiable with out an edudation , wel what \exactly is education anyway b, it is learning how to think , solve problems , pactice , abbiliuties come with pracical application , to lean how to do skills . I have learned how to learn i can t tell you how to learn for that is personalk you have to learn how you learn . we al leanrn in different ways , the educators try to teach you how to but you must teach yourself. colege is good unfortunatly many czant afford it , so we must try to help thwem the educaion plan propoesd by president Obamma is atemping to help this cause.” (Then again, maybe running this letter verbatim would help bring about education reform!)

Since these campaigns do little except clog up letters e-mail boxes and inspire snarky blog posts from the editors who have to read them, such advocacy groups may want to re-think their strategy.

Ginger Spice is a climate scientist?

Chris Mautone — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:11:57 +0000

With the Obama administration expected to take action on CO2 emissions in an effort to reduce climate change, those on both sides of the issue are already weighing in. I got a bunch of form letters this morning from local residents, which begin, “I want our leaders to know that here in New York we support bold action on climate and energy, including a cap on carbon pollution.” (Of course, readers of this blog know what happens to form letters around here.) They continue, “Capping carbon pollution will ignite the transition to clean energy, end our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, and put America on a path toward economic recovery. A cap on carbon pollution will create tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs that can’t be shipped overseas. Consumers and businesses will benefit from stable energy prices, and with greater energy efficiency, we can get more from the energy we have which will mean lower electricity bills.” Opponents beg to differ – arguing that C02 reduction efforts would hurt the economy, or would be ineffective, or that the money could be better spent on other, more pressing issues. So far, an honest difference of opinion.

However, another recent letter is claiming that “science” has disproven the idea of man-made climate disruption. A rather extraordinary claim considering that the worldwide scientific community, after decades of studies that have undergone strict peer review, has overwhelmingly concluded that increased C02 emissions are causing changes in the climate (although there remains a bit of debate about how much change will occur and how quickly). So what proof does this letter-writer offer to the contrary? He refers to “a Petition Project, signed by 32,000 scientists” who dispute the accepted scientific conclusions on global warming. This is also known as the “Oregon Petition,” originally distributed in the late 1990s and re-distributed in 2007, which claimed, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (The petition includes a cover letter by Dr. Frederick Seitz, president of the National Academy of Sciences in the 1960s, who later became a consultant to the tobacco industry.) And the “32,000 scientists” who signed this declaration? Wikipedia states: “The term ‘scientists’ is often used in describing signatories; however, many of the signatories have degrees in engineering or medicine.” (In other words, fields unrelated to the study of climate.) The Seattle Times noted such suspicious names on the petition as “Michael J. Fox,” “John C. Grisham” and “Dr. Geri Halliwell” (aka Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls). Scientific American in 2001 stated, “Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”

For good measure, the letter-writer also notes, “A 2007 in-depth survey of relevant literature showed that global warming is due to changes in solar flares, and unrelated to atmospheric carbon dioxide,” citing the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Again, physicians and surgeons are not climate scientists, and it wasn’t much of a surprise to see Wikipedia note that this journal is published by The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, “a politically conservative non-profit organization” (with a connection to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine behind the “Oregon Petition” cited above) whose publication “has been criticized by the medical community for alleged inaccuracies, poor research, and quackery.” Past articles in this publication promoted creationism and claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS. In 2005, an article claiming that America had had more than 7,000 cases of leprosy in the previous three years because of illegal aliens “was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration. However, publicly available statistics show that the 7,000 cases of leprosy occurred during the past 30 years, not the past 3. . . . The article’s erroneous leprosy claim was pointed out by 60 Minutes, National Public Radio, and the New York Times among other sources, but has not been corrected by the Journal.”

The writer concludes his letter by saying, “It is unclear why Obama has turned a deaf ear to science’s warning that he is betting the national birthright on a phantom crisis.” If the examples above are what the writer considers “science,” then he has answered his own question.

‘Awareness’ awareness

Chris Mautone — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:41:00 +0000

April is barely a week old, and I’ve already been reminded via form letters and/or press releases in the letters e-mailbox that it’s Alcohol Awareness Month, National Pet First Aid Awareness Month and (the first!) National Multiple Birth Awareness Month, among others – or so proclaimed by various nonprofit or trade organizations that are seeking publicity for their cause or product.

Such “awareness” months, weeks and days can be a key ingredient in promoting a worthy cause – most people are familiar with Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Fire Prevention Week, all in October. But according to brownielocks.com, a Web site that lists hundreds of such observations, October is also National Roller Skating Month, National Sarcastic Awareness Month, Squirrel Awareness Month, Lee’s National Denim Day, National Bring Your Teddy Bear To Work & School Day and National Chocolate Cupcake Day. (The site notes that “All our holidays are validated with sponsors or organizations.”)

Leaving out the obviously commercial or satirical, there’s only so much “awareness” that can be accommodated on an opinion page, and I have to be “aware” of writers trying to submit form letters or letters that serve to promote their own private business or practice. We used to get form letters from local members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons who took advantage of Breast Cancer Awareness Month to tout breast reconstruction after mastectomy, reminding readers throughout the letter that they were “board-certified plastic surgeons” (giving those who were persuaded by the letter to consider such surgery a ready “expert” to contact). That kind of free advertising went a bit too far, but local non-profits are always welcome to raise “awareness” among our readers on important topics, in their own words and preferably in a way that ties into the Westchester-Putnam-Rockland readership area.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to celebrate “Fresh Florida Tomatoes Month” with a slice of cafeteria pizza (but I guess that chocolate cupcake will have to wait until October).

In search of a statistic

Chris Mautone — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:20:31 +0000

A few weeks ago, Journal News columnist Noreen O’Donnell wrote about methods that government officials might consider in the fight against drunken driving. The organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving advocates requiring ignition interlocks for those convicted of DWI. These devices prevent a car from starting if a certain amount of alcohol is detected in the driver’s breath. O’Donnell wrote: “Is an ignition interlock too harsh a penalty for a first-time offender? Groups such as MADD argue no. First-time offenders are often getting caught for the first time, but have driven drunk many times before, they say. One study found that those convicted of drunken driving had driven drunk more than 87 times before their first arrest.”

This paragraph drew the following response from Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, a self-described “association of restaurants and on-premise retailers committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages”:

I did a Google search and discoved that Longwell had the identical letter published in the Indianapolis Star in February (with the lines in parentheses changed to make it a response to a Feb. 19 story the paper ran), and I imagine this same letter gets sent out to any newspaper that repeats MADD’s “more than 87 times” statistic. We don’t publish such “form letters,” or knowingly run letters that have already been published elsewhere, but my curiosity was piqued regarding the study in question. Where, in fact, did this study come from, and had it been debunked? Neither side seemed to be providing specifics on this. The “87 times” figure comes up in a few places on MADD’s Web site, but you have to look to the footnotes for the source of that statistic: Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore, “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I did another Google search, hoping to find the study itself, but was unsuccessful. I did find the study and/or its authors referenced in several other studies and reports, including “Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving” by Ralph Hingson, Sc.D., and Michael Winter, M.P.H. at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institues of Health, in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, and at the National Transportation Safety Board Web site.

One thing I didn’t find in my quick search was any study that specifically refuted the “87 times” claim from the Zador study; there may be studies that came to different conclusions on this matter, but it would take some more digging to find them. So, is MADD justified in publicizing this statistic in making the case for ignition interlocks, or does the American Beverage Institute have a point in questioning the data? Hard to say without looking deeper into the available research, which the average reader of articles and letters-to-the-editor on the topic isn’t likely to pursue. However, looking beyond this one statistic, there seems to be plenty of other information out there that the various groups involved can draw upon in making their respective cases to the public, and for policy-makers to consult in their effort to determine the best ways to combat the DWI problem.

Don’t delay – act now

Chris Mautone — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:37:32 +0000

There are three times a year where we can brace ourselves for an onslaught of letters: March village elections, May school elections and the general elections in November. Of the three, the village elections are usually the quietest, and so far this month we’ve only received a handful of election letters for Westchester/Putnam – all involving Port Chester.

However, with the March 18 elections just over a week away, and with our endorsement editorials running this week, the number of election letters we receive is likely to shoot upward. Waiting until the last minute to send such letters seems to be a deliberate strategy, as candidates want to be the ones whose supporters get “the last word” in, leaving the other side with insufficient time to respond. Unfortunately for them, this strategy may backfire as we find ourselves with more election letters than we have space to accommodate. If we get a flood of last-minute letters for a candidate, they are likely to be used only on our Web site rather than in print, and may be rejected altogether if we feel there is insufficient time to contact the writer for verification or to fact-check questionable assertions.

Therefore, we have an “unofficial” deadline for receipt of election letters (usually the Thursday before the election) which gives us time to “catch up” and schedule the last batch of letters to run in a timely fashion. We will accept letters after the “deadline” if the other side needs to respond to a letter that has already appeared, but a last-minute “attack” letter or one that raises new issues won’t be used if the candidate being criticized wouldn’t have enough time to get a response published before the election.

Another thing we can count on is that the election letters we do receive are often well over our 250-word limit. Campaigns will often send us the same letters that they send to whichever weekly publication(s) cover the municipality in question; since these publications allow for much longer letters, that means we’re getting letters that are 450-500 words or more. We are not likely to run such letters if it is obvious that they were sent to other publications, nor are we going to take to time to cut them down or return them to the writer for trimming if they are last-minute submissions.

So, if you’re looking to have a village election letter published this week, please keep it brief, and get it to us right away.

Upon further review . . .

Chris Mautone — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:40:53 +0000

Letters on national politics are a staple on our Editorial Page, and, as those who are unhappy with the administration in power are more likely to write, it should be no surprise that an anti-Republican sentiment dominated for the last eight years. Also no surprise – in the month that Barack Obama has been president, the incoming letters have shifted sharply to the right.

We welcome debate on the issues, as long as it is based on facts. However, we received a couple of problematic letters this week from writers who apparently relied on “talking points” without bothering to look further into the situation.

One letter-writer claimed that Obama’s nomination of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire as Commerce secretary (who later withdrew) was part of an insidious plot to replace a Republican senator with a Democratic one and achieve a filibuster-proof majority: “. . .if Gregg accepts the job, NH Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement. Understandably, Lynch would appoint a Democrat.” Not so fast. According to published reports, Gregg had initially agreed to the nomination on condition that a Republican be appointed to his Senate seat. (Gregg’s former chief of staff, Republican Bonnie Newman, was believed to have been Lynch’s pick). A little more research would have prevented the writer from jumping to conclusions.

A second letter-writer opens with “Obama, together with his henchmen in Congress, Pelosi and Reed (sic), are about to propose new insidious legislation . . . What they advocate is that for every hour a patriotic, conservative radio talk show host broadcasts, that station must provide comparable time to a host with left wing credentials.” The writer is apparently referring to the “Fairness Doctrine” that was in effect for several decades until being abolished by the FCC in 1987. The doctrine required broadcasters to provide contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues (not necessarily “equal time”). While some Democrats (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) and progressive radio hosts have recently spoken out in favor of restoring the Fairness Doctrine, Obama has stated publicly that he opposes its revival, most recently in a report on FOXNews.com on Wednesday. (It should also be noted that no imminent legislation regarding restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, or any “new” proposed regulations, has been announced.) Since the Fairness Doctrine has been brought up for public discussion, the writer certainly has the right to express his opinion on it, but his factual errors will be corrected before publication.

Such misstatement of fact isn’t unique to conservatives – we’ve also received wild overestimations of the number of dead in Iraq from anti-war writers, for example. So we ask letter-writers of all political stripes to please double-check your facts with a reliable news source or two – don’t rely solely on blogs, talk radio, your next-door neighbor or e-mail campaigns for your information.