The untruthful Times-News

There’s a truism often heard around courtrooms where Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is practiced which goes like this: “Untruthful in one, untruthful in all.” In other words, if a litigant who asserts a number of points under oath is found to have lied on one of the points, it’s logical to assume the litigant lied on all points, thus discrediting the pleading in its entirety.

And so it is with Sunday’s column in the Erie Times-News by its so-called public editor, Kevin Cuneo. In response to this question from a reader: “Why did you change some of the wording in my letter to the editor? You also shortened it and took some of the "punch" out of it,” Cuneo replied:

“Letters are edited so they conform to newspaper style, which is the same standard for all news stories and columns. “

That's a lie: I’ve written letters to the editors of many newspapers and other publications such as the New York Times, TIME Magazine, USA ToDay and others without knowing what writing styles they use. I’ve never had one edited “for style” except by the Erie Times-News. There are as many styles as there are newspapers and magazines. Most of them have their own writing style manuals.

Cuneo went on to say: “It's a policy shared by many newspapers. In some cases, that means correcting grammar and style, such as making sure the formal names of businesses, groups, people, etc., are listed properly. Letters must also pass the rigors of fact checking, libel law and basic principles of journalism.

Cuneo continued, ad nauseum: “We make every effort to retain the author's writing style, but please keep letters within 250 words. The shorter the better, as readership surveys have shown readers prefer shorter letters.

”Occasionally,” Cuneo droned, “letter writers might not know all the facts, confuse facts with opinion or just shoot from the hip with a verbal six-shooter. Opinion is good, but letters with personal attacks, criticism that exceeds the lines of good taste, obscenity or falsehoods won't be published.”

Lies, lies, all lies. Allow me to demonstrate. Back in June, I sent the following letter to the editor of the Times-News. I received a call from someone who said she was Penny calling for the Times-News to verify that it was I who had sent the letter, not someone posing as me. When I confirmed that I had sent the letter, she thanked me and said it would be published in a few days.

But after waiting a couple weeks without seeing it in print, I sent the same letter to Cuneo in his capacity as “public editor.” It follows:

Dear Kevin,

On May 30, the Times-News ran an editorial lavishly praising the late Pennsylvanian Rachael Carson for her pioneering role in the environmental movement of the 20th Century and the repopulation of bald eagles in some regions of the U.S. The editorial ignores the journalistic adage that there's always more than one side to every story.

In the early 1960s, Ms. Carson demonized the use of the pesticide Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), leading to a widespread ban on its use. The revival of bald eagle populations in the U.S is often attributed to the DDT ban.

Some reputable scientests of late vigorously disagree, citing massive land drainage and critical habitat loss instead. Some of them refer to Ms. Carson's writing as "junk science."

There's an irrefutable downside and incalculable human cost attached to the ban precipitated by Ms. Carson on the use of DDT as a pesticide. Untold tens of thousands of people have died of malaria, typhus and other infections contracted from legions of disease-carrying mosquitoes which the judicious use of DDT would have eradicated.

According to the World Health Organization, after South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in Kwa Zulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is fewer than 50 per year.

Joe LaRocca

I never heard from Cuneo, and the letter was never published.

Why not? It was under 250 words; my grammar is impeccable;not only did I recite all the facts correctly, I corrected inaccuracies contained in the original editorial; my research was unimpeachable;I did not confuse facts with opinion, although the editorial did; I did not shoot from the hip with a “verbal six shooter (as the editorial writer did); as you, dear reader, can see, my letter did not contain any “personal attacks, criticism that exceeds the lines of good taste, obscenity or falsehoods;” any lawyer will tell you there’s nothing libelous, or even actionable in my letter; I’ve been a professional working journalist for more than 40 years, reporting and writing for some of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, including the New York Times, so I’m well tuned in to the “basic principles of journalism,” far better, I would suggest, than Cuneo or anyone else at the Times-News.

So why wasn’t my letter published? It met all the criteria extolled by Cuneo. I’ll tell you why. Because it contradicted the personal views, beliefs and left-wing ideology of the person who wrote the original editorial, Times-News Editorial Page Editor Bryan Oberle, spouse of one of the heirs of the Times-Publishing Co., embarrassing him by highlighting the factual errors contained in the editorial he wrote.

Apply this approach to all the editors on the Times-News editorial board, and you have the real answer to the question the reader above asked Cuneo: “Why did you change some of the wording in my letter to the editor? You also shortened it and took some of the "punch" out of it.”

If your letter doesn’t satisfy the gauntlet of biases, prejudices, agenda, self-serving policies, warped ideologies and ignorance of each of the members of the Times-News editorial board, it doesn’t get published, or if it does, it's butchered. It’s as simple as that.

Thus, having been demonstrably "untruthful in one" (actually, more than one),can we believe anything Cuneo tells us? I don’t think so. And if short letters of no more than 250 words are so appealing to readers, why don't Cuneo, Ed Mead, Pat Howard, Oberle and their fellow word merchants limit their offerings accordingly?