The following note was sent to Mr. Geason by Steve Lovejoy of the Racine Journal Times:Starting with accepting the Doyle Administration's spin regarding the gas tax reduction and the elimination of the Social Security tax, Lovejoy makes it clear the only way to interpret events is from the DPW talking points.
Bob,
I remember getting this now. Sorry, but you're the one who's shading the truth here. The fact is Doyle signed the budget which contained both the gas tax reduction and the elimination of the Soc. Security tax. You are correct that he did not propose them - but neither did he veto them. The GOP-controlled finance committee COULD NOT have enacted them without Doyle's signature. As to the education funding, the GOP budget version did increase school spending by something like one percent. Using his veto powers Doyle increased the amount earmarked for schools by something like 2 or 2.5 percent. That's the truth, Bob. If you want to rewrite your letter and have it square with the facts we'll be glad to run it.
I love the "...by something like one percent" and "...something like 2 or 2.5 percent." Then the editor asks the letter writer to "square with the facts" when it's clear the editor is unsure of what the facts even are!
In the end, the letter writer is asked to rewrite the letter to conform to Lovejoy's opinions and misinformed guesses. Not exactly inviting letters to the editor.
Let's contrast that with what I believe are the letter policies for most newspapers. (The two journalism experts who read this blog can correct me.) Most newspapers prefer letters that are readable, short (roughly 200 words or less), and not the result of some mass-mailing-sign-here campaigns. Newspapers would like to print letters written to them and them only and not letters that have already appeared in other newspapers. The letters cannot have foul language and cannot be libelous.
What the Racine Journal Times did does not constitute "censorship." After all, it's their barrel of ink (until Gannett buys them). In fact, had the editor rejected the letter because it appeared in two other newspapers, I would say his decision was perfectly sound.
However, that is not what happened in the case of this letter. The Racine Journal Times editor makes it clear he is only interested in letters that conform to his views. When confronted with a letter with a contrary point of view, he actually has the nerve to ask the author to re-write the letter to match the editor's views.
Perhaps the Racine Journal Times should give up the pretense of having an open forum letters page and instead encourage letters only from those who believe as the editors do regardless of the facts. Apparently it's the unstated policy.
