Background: In the fall of 1986, the Albert Lea Evening Tribune published a letter to the editor from C___ L___, under the heading “Leave Smokers Be,” in which she answered a county commissioner who apparently had said that taxpayers should not provide for the privilege of people smoking in public buildings. The letter stated in part:

First, smoking, drinking or overeating are rights – not privileges. Secondly, (smokers) are also taxpayers. They buy homes, furniture, cars and groceries. They also vote for County Commissioners, Treasurers, and Auditors . . .. Give me back my freedom and let me have control of my body as I see fit.

Polis then submitted to the Tribune his letter to the editor in reply:

How wrong, how dead wrong your views C___ L___. Our entire life and what we do with it is a privilege. Only by the grace of God we live from day to day. And one of the reasons why we have all this misery in this world is because of that word RIGHTS.

Some feel they have the right to hoard $$$ while millions are starving, some feel they have the right to take the life of an unborn, others, like you feel they have a right to blow smoke in my face.

Should I go on? If you forget about the RIGHTS and consider everyone else’s feelings – do unto others as you would want them do to you – this entire world would be a much better place to live in.

The Tribune, under the heading “No ‘Right’ to Smoke,” publishes the following edited version of Polis’ letter:

One of the reasons why we have all this misery in this world is because of the word “rights.”

Some feel they have the right to hoard money while millions are starving. Some feel they have the right to take the life of an unborn child. Others, like C___ L___, feel they have the right to blow smoke in my face (while they work in government buildings).

If people would forget about the word “rights” and consider every one else’s feelings, this entire world would be a much better place to live.

/s/ John Polis

Polis agrees that the Tribune had a right to edit his letter for “bad language or length.” He concedes the edited version correctly states his position, although he takes exception to the elimination of the first three sentences of his submitted letter, particularly the third sentence. Polis says, “Editors shouldn’t put words in other people’s mouths,” and he contends the edited letter was not recognizably his own.

Schmidt of the Tribune said the Tribune felt the tone of the submitted letter was, if not libelous, rather inflammatory and subject to be construed as a personal affront to C___ L___. While conceding the editing was “on the side of conservatism,” Schmidt argued the revision, if anything, clarified and better stated Polis’ position.

Decision of the News Council: This case presents a particularly interesting and difficult question. The question is not whether a newspaper has the right to edit letters to the editor. Rather, the question is how much editing. In this case, the revision was done in good faith and with legitimate motives, although we are not here passing judgment on whether the changes were advisable. Moreover, the letter writer’s message was left intact. The problem, however, is whether an editor may change the distinctive writing style of the letter writer.

It is customary for newspapers to reserve the right to edit letters to the editor. Indeed, we think it is good practice for a newspaper to announce it reserves such right and to set out for the readers the paper’s guidelines for letter editing. For example, a letter’s length is a proper matter for editing. Unclear sentences may be clarified. Poor grammar, punctuation, and language usage may at times be corrected, especially if it saves the letter writer from embarrassment. Editors also are properly concerned about statements that may be libelous or in poor taste. Each newspaper, reflecting the mores of the community and its readership, tends to develop its own standards of what is appropriate correspondence.

Letters to the editor are a unique and popular feature of newspapers. In effect, the paper provides a bulletin board for an exchange of views among people in the community. Letters, with few exceptions, must be signed. This means that, in publishing a letter, the newspaper represents to the public that what is said in the letter is being said by the person whose name appears as that of the author. Consequently, it is important that not only the letter writer’s position be fairly stated but that the letter retain the “flavor” of the letter as submitted, and that it generally reflects the writer’s personality. In other words, we think retention of a letter writer’s own distinctive style is important. Thus, letters to the editor should be edited in the same manner as an editor edits a staff writer’s copy. If a submitted letter, in the opinion of the newspaper, requires extensive editing so that it no longer fairly reflect the views or style of the writer, it seems to us either the edited version should be approved by the writer before publication, or the letter should be returned to the writer for rewriting, or the letter should be rejected for publication.

The News Council recognizes an editor must be afforded considerable discretion in editing letters to the editor and that different editors will edit differently. Indeed, the split among the News Council members in this case illustrates how difficult it is to agree on what is or is not appropriate editing.

We turn now to this case. Polis has a lively, distinctive writing style. It seems rather unlikely that Polis’ letter would be construed as either libelous or as an improper personal attack on the letter writer whom Polis was answering. Some newspapers, we think, would have published Polis’ letter “as is,” with minor grammatical corrections. On the other hand, we believe other newspapers, concerned about the argumentative tone of Polis’ letter, might prefer, as did the Tribune, to do more editing.

In this case, in an attempt to lessen the personal tone of the letter, the editor recast the wording into the third person, leaving the message the same but the style more neutral and bland. To the extent Polis has argued that a person’s distinctive writing style should not be removed in the editing process, we agree with him. To the extent, however, he claims the Tribune’s editing went too far, we disagree. Although a close question, on balance, we conclude that enough of Polis’ style remained in his letter as edited and that his message was left intact and clearly stated.

The grievance, therefore, is denied.

Concurring: Casey, Clark, Earley, Falkman, King, Larson, Simonett, Stone, Warder

Dissenting: Graven, Parrish

Dissenting Opinion: Ashmore - The Council’s determination favoring broad editing discretion over letters to the editor is correct, but the apparent corporate-sponsored chill in the Evening Tribune newsroom is not. Through the hearing, the Council uncovered a major journalistic problem but failed to deal with it in the determination.

In his presentation, Schmidt indicated he feared the reference to C___ L___ was libelous. He said a news adviser from Chicago visited his office recently and indicated such references might create a libel problem. It is, he said, company policy not to print such references, and he endorses that policy.

There are nuisance suits that cost newspapers money, and that is unjust and injurious to newspapers. But the only way to eliminate the danger is to stop publishing. A newspaper cannot carry out its public duty to report information if its editor is walking on eggs, fearing one broken shell will cause him or her to be hauled into court.

We have not seen the end of costly, unjust libel actions. But how will this injustice end? Plaintiffs will not end it, as long as the corporations that publish newspapers cower in fear at the mention of a lawsuit. Attorneys will not end it, as long as vigorous client representation is rewarded with settlements that do not require presenting an unjust case to a judge or jury.

The injustice will end only when editors say “Hogwash” when told, or when thinking, that something as simple as “How wrong, dead wrong, your views . . .” is libelous. Only when judges and juries see enough examples of injustice will they tighten up the system and make it too risky for a plaintiff to being a nuisance suit. The fear that it might have to stand up and be part of the solution has apparently caused the Evening Tribune to give up and become part of the problem.

Newspaper people, like all professionals, must know what will in fact constitute libel and publish, with care, accordingly. But to avoid printing a legitimate item (or to edit it, stylistically, beyond recognition) because someone might get angry and initiate an unjust action perpetuates the problem.

To the extent that this chill is induced by the corporation that publishes the newspaper and employs the news people, the Council shall speak out against it. If this is a mistake on the part of an individual, the Council should provide guidance to help keep the problem from recurring.

Dissenting Opinion: Ryan - Ashmore expresses essentially my determination of this case. The newspaper revision, I think, was done in good faith. But barring offensive language or inflammatory rhetoric, the content should have been used as submitted. The original letter was hardly libelous, and the newspaper was too overly cautious. Since the volume of letters to the editor in Albert Lea is small, the editor might have made more effort to contact the writer to discuss the proposed alteration. It is obvious that the publisher, especially, seemed to make himself impossible to be reached on the subject.

Dissenting Opinion: Graven, Parrish - I agree with the majority that the question is close. I agree with almost all of their opinions except the conclusions. I think that on these facts the editing gutted the distinctive style of the writer so that the substantial rewrite should have been submitted for his approval before it was published. The editor went too far.