Determination
4
Minnesota
News Council
In
the Matter of the Complaint of Robert Shearin against the Rochester
Post-Bulletin
Dr.
Robert P. N. Shearin complained that the paper used "oppressive attempts
to suppress public opinion and information" when it declined to publish
a second letter to the editor from him, and when it later decided
not to accept any more letters on the topic.
Background:
The topic was the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortions,
and the newspaper published many letters on the subject in late January
and early February, 1973. Following publication of a Post-Bulletin
editorial supporting the ruling, Dr. Shearin submitted a letter challenging
the editor to document the reasons for his confidence in the scientific
aspects of the Supreme Court's action. The letter was published with
an editor's note stating briefly the sources for the editorialist's
scientific information.
Shearin
subsequently wrote a second letter that further challenged the paper's
stance. The letter was written in a lengthy, scholarly form, including
footnotes and bibliography, and was submitted with the stipulation
that it be published in full. The letter was not printed.
After
two weeks of publishing letters on the Court's decision, the majority
of which opposed the newspaper's editorial position and supported
Shearin's viewpoint, the newspaper announced closure on the subject.
Response
of the news organization: In a letter to the News Council, the
paper's editor outlined the paper's informal policy of printing only
one letter from an individual in a 30-day period unless the writer
has been attacked through another letter to the editor.
Determination
of the Council: When editorial or other space is made available
for views of newspaper readers on subjects of the day, some reasonable
controls are in order. These may concern the frequency with which
certain subjects are treated or the fair presentation of both sides
of a question. The point at which the public interest has been served
and letters on a topic may be terminated is up to the editor, whose
judgment, in turn, depends on many facts related to the specific issues
in the case. Considerations of fairness and reasonable presentation
of various views are not easily stated in specific guidelines to be
applied in all cases.
The
facts brought out by the Council's study do not support Dr. Shearin's
charge that the paper attempted to suppress public opinion and information.
Instead of acting without reason, as charged, the paper actually chose
to allow the critics of the Court's opinion, and of the paper's own
editorial, far more space than the supporters of that opinion. There
was sound reason in the interest of the reading public to terminate
the series of letters on the abortion topic and to go on to other
subjects in which the public was interested.
In addition,
the form in which Shearin's second letter was submitted would have
provided sufficient justification for a refusal to publish it: the
documented format of learned journals used in the letter presents
troublesome problems to the newspaper, for both typographical and
editorial reasons. In general, letter writers are more likely to have
their opinions printed if they comply with the style of the publication
rather than attempting to impose their own style from outside. The
complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.
February
23, 1973
Read
Determination 5
Back
to Main
Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
