To publish or not to publish?
Editors worry more about what we don’t share than what we do
Until recently, journalists have been described as “gatekeepers” because we decide what news gets reported and what does not.
We determine which photographs to publish and which to discard, what events to cover and what to ignore, which letters and submissions to accept and which to reject, which stories get big headlines and which get small headlines, what gets front-page or home-page coverage and what gets buried in the depths of the newspaper, newscast or website.
Some of those decisions are made after considered thought and discussion; others not so much. And while editors are often criticized for what they publish, it is just as often the stuff we do not publish that keeps us up at night.
Which brings me to a letter to the editor published last week in The Spectator, which caused a small ruckus on social media. Many, including some pretty thoughtful people, said The Spectator shouldn’t have published it, which is debatable.
Others said it was hate speech, which it is not.
The letter was in response to a Spectator editorial, “We should be worried” in which Howard Elliott, the editorial page editor, expressed concern about Donald Trump. The letter basically said, “Yes, you should be worried.”
A comment on Twitter captured the entire letter, and commented “Amazing what is suddenly acceptable to say out loud again. When you feed the beast, the beast grows.”
Well, yes, it is amazing what is suddenly acceptable again, and nobody knows it better than newspaper editors, who get more comments from bigots and ill-informed citizens than most others.
Maybe that’s why we want to let readers know such thoughts may be more prevalent than some may think, or would like to think.
There are too many people in Canada who think Trump could never have been elected here. Indeed, too many in America thought the same — that’s how he got elected.
But does it necessarily follow that publishing such offensive thoughts in a letter somehow legitimizes them, or encourages them?
It’s possible, I suppose, but not any more than writing a news article quoting Trump — endlessly — and his supporters, no matter how many times such statements are “balanced” by the other side. The beast is already growing.
And writing a story about the letter may be even more offensive to some, who would accuse us of giving it even more attention.
It could be argued a letter is more responsible, by simply and plainly exposing such thoughts in all their ugliness to the harsh light of day.
Doing so creates a discussion like the one last week on social media and beyond, not by journalists but by concerned citizens, and generates a flood of letters like those published in following days, some criticizing our decision to publish the letter and others defending it — but all condemning its contents.
The Internet has lifted some of the gatekeeping burden from journalists’ shoulders. We are all each now our own gatekeeper, for better and worse.
Perhaps everyone will now learn what editors have always known: It doesn’t matter whose thoughts you are sharing; critics always aim first for the messenger.