Letters to the Editor

One of the most frequent issues raised by complainants with the Press Council is the failure of a newspaper to publish a complainant's letter. At the suggestion of a provincial newspaper editor, the Council's Office Manager, Deborah Kirkman, has put together a summary of the Council's rulings on the questions arising.

Why wasn't my letter published? Why wasn't I given a "right of reply"? Why was my letter edited?

These are some of the questions complainants ask of Council about letters to the editor columns.

Selection

Let's look at how letters are selected. To state the obvious, there is no such thing as automatic entry into the letters page, the forum for readers' opinion. Letters are published for a variety of reasons: "Some are published to provide an opportunity to reply to material already published, some to provide information of use or interest to readers, some simply to reflect the variety of public opinion on issues and to provide an opportunity for its expression."[1] Letters which are defamatory, racist, sexist, and so forth are usually culled. Then it is the job of the editor to determine what is, or what is not, newsworthy.

Criteria

A number of criteria are used, including relevance to a topic [2], quality, style, depth, reasonableness and uniqueness.[3] It is unlikely that a paper will view a letter favourably when it contains inaccuracies. The Council has, in the past, felt it appropriate to point out "that the public interest is best served when correspondents' views are couched in a reasonable form and style".[4]

As papers receive many more letters than they can publish, only the best make it into print. And, on a personal level, it seems that no matter how good you think your letter is, the chances are that someone else has said it better.

Bias

The secretariat often receives complaints that a certain viewpoint is not being sufficiently canvassed, or not canvassed at all. The Council doesn't seek to impose its view on what should be published in the letters page. It has reiterated on a number of occasions its belief that it "is a matter for the exercise of proper editorial discretion".[5] The letters page is a reflection of what the paper's readership is interested in. Your letter might not be published, but similar letters might.

As noted earlier, no individual or organisation can expect an automatic right of access to the column.[6] It is too often the case that pressure groups who hold a minority viewpoint expect an equal say. Editors strive for balance of input. It would be an unfair representation to publish 3 of the 30 letters received promoting education and the only 3 received promoting illiteracy. It would not be a true reflection of the readership's opinions.

Opportunity to Reply

A similar theme is the concept of "right of reply". I have placed inverted commas around this phrase as there is no such thing as "right of reply". Papers are not obliged to publish an aggrieved person's letter. The Council has observed that "an individual's belief that words in a newspaper are a personal attack is not, on its own, sufficient reason for the paper to be obliged to print a reply".[7] And a person is not given an automatic double-dipping right to answer a letter responding to his or her original letter. The Press Council, however, does place emphasis on fairness when damaging material has been published.

The Council says that there is a greater onus on publications to provide an opportunity for reply in certain circumstances. Principle 2 refers to a publication making amends for publishing information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate. And Principle 8 relates to the necessity of fairness and balance where individuals or groups are singled out for criticism. Neutralisation of damage and the necessity for fairness entail a range of remedies from a follow-up article, a clarification, a correction and, yes, a letter to the editor.[8]

Editing of Letters

And then there are the complaints about editing of letters. If you are lucky enough to have your letter published, it is possible that it might be edited. If you don't want your work edited, then ask that it be published in full, or not at all. I suspect, however, that this will lessen your chances of publication. Most publications have a box which gives guidelines for letters, stating word limits and advising that it reserves the right to edit letters, although I have noticed one paper which states they may be edited "with consultation". The Council has adjudicated that papers "have the right to edit letters for length, clarity or fairness or to avoid possible defamation".[9] It has also stated that this right is balanced by the proviso that in the editing process the writer's intention and meaning has not been interfered with, distorted or misrepresented.[10] While a lot of complaints about editing that I have seen are instances of people upset that their entire letter was not published, there have been cases where the edited letter has left the writer appearing foolish, or their whole point being sabotaged by the simple removal of the word "not".

I enjoy reading the letters pages. I submit to them, and occasionally I am fortunate in having a letter published. I wish you the same luck.

DEBORAH KIRKMAN

see also
Dinoo Kellaghan, of The Australian, talks about letters to the editor
Prof David Flint on publishable letters

Footnotes

1. Adjudication No. 287 [return to article]
2. The topic itself does not guarantee publication. See Dinoo Kellaghan's article in the Australian Press Council News, May 1995. [return to article]
3. See David Flint's article, APC News, November 1995, for tips on getting your letter published. [return to article]
4. Adjudication No. 325. [return to article]
5. See, for example, Adjudications Nos. 358, 471 and 531. [return to article]
6. Dinoo Kellaghan also made the point that readers forget that countering articles are often run in the opinion or news pages. [return to article]
7. Adjudication No. 619. [return to article]
8. See, for example, Adjudications Nos. 619 and 724. [return to article]
9. Adjudication No. 612. [return to article]
10. See, for example, adjudications Nos. 511, 604, 612 and 695. [return to article]

Note: The AustLII site carries all Council's adjudications

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1998 Index

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.