Belisle complained to the paper that the response unfairly maligned him by accusing him of making a false statement with his earlier figures. Belisle submitted another letter reiterating this point. The letter was not published.

The newspaper editor argued that the letter writers were expressing the same information in different ways and that continuing the exchange of letters would turn the debate into “a futile ping-pong match.”

Belisle argued that the paper should have published an equal number of his and the other writer’s letters and should have researched the matter to determine which writer was correct. Belisle complained that the paper arbitrarily denied him fair access to the letters column.

Determination of the Council: The debate appeared to be more than the quibbling that the paper asserted. Although both letter writers were expressing the same information in different ways, the other writer, whether or not intentionally, wrongly stated that Belisle made an incorrect statement.

However, as Belisle had made his point in the first letter, the paper was not obligated to allow him to respond and reiterate his point in another letter. He had not wholly been denied access to the paper’s letters column. Newspapers have a right to impose limits on the number of letters printed from the same source, the frequency with which a topic is mentioned, etc.; newspapers are not obligated to print equal numbers of letters from different writers engaged in a debate.

In this particular case, to allow Belisle to reiterate his point does not take precedence over keeping the column open for other opinion on mandatory deposit or any other issue.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Dissenting Opinion: Spielman While I agree that the newspaper has the right to determine when it shall cut off debate on any subject in its letters-to-the-editor column, and Belisle has no claim to any number of letters because the other letter writer had a certain number allowed him, I do believe that every newspaper has an obligation to the rest of its readers to be completely accurate in its facts (as opposed to opinions), no matter how they are presented in a news story, editorial, syndicated column, or even a letter to the editor.

The exhibits show conclusively that the other letter writer was the one who misinterpreted the facts, not Belisle. Had the editor been aware of this at the time, an editor’s note would have been appropriate at the end of the other letter writer’s letter. Since it was not caught at that time, a separate editor’s note published later could have corrected the facts without the necessity of printing another letter from Belisle. Thus the issue is that of accuracy, not of fairness.