Letters to the editor are some of the most read newspaper content. Folks like to know what their neighbours think, especially if it is a thoughtful and heartfelt opinion.
But letters also can give editors—me!—stress.
A recent National News Media Council (NNC) decision put voice to the challenges letters can pose.
NNC is the news industry’s regulatory organization. It fields complaints about stories and publishes its decisions.
Most recently, a decision dealt with a complaint that a community newspaper had published letters to the editor that were “discriminatory against the LGBTQ+ community.”
While the NNC doesn’t usually consider letters because they aren’t journalistic content, the organization wanted to weigh in on this complaint because of the severity of the accusations.
The decision notes that along with the letters, an editorial was published explaining that the letters were published “to promote reader education and share perspectives in order to facilitate dialogue on an important topic in the community.”
The decision notes: “Best practice for news organizations is to select letters and op-ed submissions that reflect a diversity of voices and views.”
NNC ultimately decided in this case that while the views expressed were unwelcome to the complainant, “NNC staff noted that they were presented to readers in a manner to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promote reader education. The NNC supported the news organization’s decision to offer context and information surrounding their editorial decision-making process.”
No editor wants to hurt members of its community.
And hate speech should not be published.
But there is a lot of runway in between those two extremes.
According to the BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, which cites the Criminal Code and B.C.’s Human Rights Code, to qualify as hate speech, something must:
• Be expressed in a public way or place. (So, in a newspaper would meet that threshold.)
• Target a person or group of people with a protected characteristic such as race, religion or sexual orientation.
• Use extreme language to express hatred towards that person or group of people because of their protected characteristics.
Thus, hate speech is more than just words that hurt or offend.
“It is harmful to those who are targeted and to society at large. Hate speech tries to delegitimize and dehumanize the people who are targeted in the eyes of society.”
So, many things can be hurtful—or not nice, as my mother would say—but not hate speech.
Editors must draw the line somewhere past hurtful but not close to hate.
A challenging task sometimes.
Thus, we have policies that help us and our readers ensure letters are part of a constructive conversation, such as requiring links or documentation for statements or facts in each letter.
And letters cannot be anonymous; you have to put your name to what you say and face the consequences.
It would be much easier if letters were only sweet and uplifting, but that is unrealistic and would not create much constructive debate.
Newspapers must reflect the views of the time. Think of the historical value of reading old letters from the height of the women’s movement. What writers thought about women in the workforce, for example, shows how far we have come or, conversely, how far we still have to go in society.
Our letters today, ideally, will reflect a wide variety of thoughts and perspectives so that future generations can understand us and themselves better.
On that note, we welcome letters to the editor. Send them to [email protected].
Jennifer Thuncher is a journalist and the editor of The Squamish Chief.
