Determination 84: Charles Jones v. Tri-County Record
Charles H. Jones, the grievant, was present, as was Myron J. Schober, editor of the Tri-County Record. Jones’ complaint raises issues about the newspaper’s handling of letters to the editor and the newspaper’s policy with respect to religious columns.
Background: The Tri-County Record, located in Fillmore County, serves the communities of Rushford and Peterson, which have a combined population of about 2,000. For some years this weekly newspaper has devoted one of its inside pages to a religious column and church announcements. At the request of the editor, the pastors of the various churches in the area have taken turns writing a religious message, which at times is quite doctrinal in content. Many of the churches in the area are Lutheran, but there are churches of most denominations, and the pastors of all have been invited to submit columns. The religion page is supported at least in part by advertisers.
At Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, the newspaper has devoted its front page, or a large part of it, to the significance of the day, using art work in color, and featuring a religious message from one of the local pastors.
Charles H. Jones, a local resident, claims the newspaper promotes a “one-sided” religious message in an “ostensibly secular newspaper,” and that this one-sided emphasis is offensive to those readers in the area who either are not religious or who entertain differing non-Christian religious beliefs.
On November 30, 1989, a column appeared in the newspaper written by a local Baptist minister entitled “Being a fanatic for Christ.” Jones responded with a letter to the editor taking sharp issue with portions of the column. The Tri-County Record published this letter on December 28, 1989, with an editor’s note, “Mr. Jones states he has a masters degree in human development counseling, and a masters degree in applied theology.”
On February 8,1990, the newspaper published a column by a local Lutheran pastor entitled “Love.” A week later Jones submitted a two-page letter to the editor disputing - respectfully but vigorously - the point of view expressed in the column. His letter, for example, cited the views of a noted theologian Martin Buber on the meaning of love. Not until June 7, 1990, four months later and after some prodding, did the newspaper publish Jones’ letter with the headline, “Writer disagrees with Biblical interpretation.” Alongside the letter was also published a response by the author of the column, with the headline “Pastor offers refutation using the same scripture.” Jones objects to the long delay in the publishing of his letter as well as the publishing of a rebuttal giving the pastor the last word.
Discussion: First of all, grievant claims that the newspaper has published “only a very few” of his letters. Jones had submitted seven letters. The Council does not believe a newspaper is required to publish all letters submitted to it by a particular writer, particularly when they are on the same general subject. Much is left to editorial discretion. We do not think it can be said here that Jones was denied reasonable access to the letters-to-the-editor portion of the newspaper to express his views. To put it another way, the newspaper was not required to make the grievant, in effect, a guest columnist to contend with every article written by its regular columnists.
The editor’s note to Jones’ letter stated Jones “states” he has two master’s degrees. Jones contends, rightly we think, that the editor’s use of the verb “states” suggests that the newspaper doubts the writer’s educational credentials. The editor assures us that he intended to be complimentary. The use of the verb “states” was inept, but we are satisfied no harm was intended. If an editor is in doubt about a writer’s educational degrees, it seems to us either she editor should verify the information as correct or incorrect and so state, or omit mention of the matter entirely. In this case, we repeat, Jones’ educational degrees are not questioned.
It is within an editor’s discretion whether to accompany a published letter with a response from the person criticized in that letter. This should be done in a fair manner. In this case we think the exchange of views published in the issue of June 7, 1990, was a fair exchange and of reader interest. It was not proper, however, for the newspaper to delay publishing Jones’ letter for four months. The editor points out the delay was occasioned by the pastor’s tardiness in submitting his response and that the subject matter of Jones’ letter had not lost its timeliness because of the delay. Even so, the editor has acknowledged he should not have delayed publication of Jones’ letter and he has apologized.
Finally, the grievant contends that the newspaper gives undue prominence to the Christian religion, particularly to certain Christian doctrines. One effect of this, says the grievant, is to isolate persons of other religious beliefs or those with no religious beliefs as a distinct minority within the community. Because religion is such a personal matter, he also contends overemphasis of one particular viewpoint can be uncomfortable to others of different faiths.
Newspapers in this country are not state-owned and, therefore, are not subject to the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. The Tri-County Record is privately owned and published. While it considers itself to be a newspaper for general circulation, it is free to publish whatever religious messages it chooses. Significantly, the Tri-County Record prints the religious columns on a separate page, separate from the general news reports. The newspaper does have, we think, a responsibility to be sensitive to the deeply felt religious concerns of all its readers and to provide a forum for the expression of different views.
Not every newspaper would give religious columns the prominence given by the Tri-County Record. It appears, however, that the newspaper generally reflects the interests of the community it serves. The religious messages, we are told, have a high readership. The columns themselves make clear that they represent the views of the author, not necessarily that of the newspaper. The special front page issues at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, says the editor, “serve as a desirable contrast to the normal malaise of government, sports, and meetings; we do not have murder and mayhem in Rushford.” Finally, we are persuaded that the editor is sincere in his efforts to publish a newspaper that is fair and ethical and sensitive to the diversity of personal beliefs in the community. We do not understand Jones to complain so much about the Tri-County Record publishing religious messages, but rather he believes the content of these messages should be more diverse. The two published letters of Jones, even though one was quite long, were published intact. This evidences, we think, the editor’s sensitivity to the views of others which may differ from the more prevailing views in the community. The editor states he is aware of Jones’ concerns, and, within the bounds of responsible editorial discretion, we believe he has given Jones access to the letters-to-the-editor page.
Subject to the comments expressed above with respect to the delayed publishing of Jones’ letter and the editor’s note about the letterwriter’s credentials, the grievance is denied.
Concurring: Ashmore, Chucker, Dornfeld, Givens, King, Larson, Pennock, Simonett, Stauffer, Swain, Tanick, Warder
Tags: Tri-County Record