E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The Herald-Times breaks its own standards again

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

I sent the following e-mail to the Herald-Times editor on June 8. He did respond that the author should not have been allowed to use the word "murder" in his letter to the editor (which I appreciate) but that calling Michelle Gregg irresponsible is not defamatory in a legal sense.

An accusation of bad behavior need not met the legal definition of libel for a newspaper to refuse to publish that accusation. Claiming she was irresponsible with her child when she was not is a "false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt" and "causes her to be shunned." The H-T has a history of holding letters for verification of negative claims about specific people. Publishing this accusation was a poor ethical choice.

Here is the electronic mail I sent last week:

I am very disappointed that you chose to publish the inflammatory letter about Harambe the gorilla today. By the standards that the Herald-Times has established for reader-submitted content, this letter should have been rejected.

First, the use of the word "murder" is not only unnecessarily inflammatory, it violates the standards set by the Herald-Times years ago. As you recall, you forbade the use of the word "murder" in HTO comments to describe abortion, because murder is a felony. You instead suggested the word "killing," which is not a term that describes a felony. If the word "murder" is not allowed in the absence of a murder conviction in HTO comments, it should certainly not be allowed in a published letter to the editor.

Some may think that the killing of Harambe was unjustifiable. They are wrong, but they have the right to hold that opinion. But the killing was not a murder. The zoo employees decided to end the life of an animal to save the life of a human child. If the child was in danger from a human being, it would be seen as a justifiable homicide. The same is true here. If the word "murder" is not allowed to describe abortion, it should not be allowed to describe the killing of a gorilla to save a three year old child.

Second, the statement in the fictional letter from Harambe that "an irresponsible human let her child enter my zoo habitat" is defamatory and should have been removed from the letter. The police have decided there will be no charges against the mother, who has been subjected to unrelenting hate, vitriol and harassment on social media and has even gotten numerous death threats. There was never any evidence that the mother was irresponsible - it was just assumed in the anger over the death of a gorilla that she was a bad mother. Quite frankly, some of these assumptions are based on racist stereotypes of black women.

Anyone who has children - especially more than one - knows that toddlers are fleet of foot and can scamper off quickly. In an environment like a zoo where there are a lot of people and there is a lot of noise, a toddler's ability to zip away is enhanced. Prosecutor Joseph Deters told the New York Times the mother "was being attentive to her children by all witness accounts, and the 3-year-old just scampered off."

It is unfortunate that the newspaper serving a city that houses one of the nation's most prestigious journalism schools would print a letter with an accusation based on conjecture and rumor. I think you owe Michelle Gregg a public apology for deciding to print this inflammatory and false accusation against her.

I hope you will exercise better judgment in choosing which letters to the editor to print.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.