People are talking about the N&R opinion page. They are not saying good things. On Facebook, the paper's former top editor (and before that, opinion editor) mocks his old employer's standards for LTE. There's a pile-on in the comments. [John Robinson, via FB, re his comment ("Next up, a letter explaining that ghosts are scientific fact"): "I don't mock the paper's standards. I do question them in that case. That's different than mocking them."]

Another former editor posts at his blog under the headline, "Letters to the editor: Now the News & Record is just trolling us." That's preferable to the theory I floated a couple of weeks ago: They just don't care.

Oddly silent are the folks on Market Street. Sure, their actions speak volumes: The N&R will publish letters containing factual errors obvious to a clever ten-year-old. It's policy. But why?

Maybe their take on free speech enshrines a right to spew misinformation in a newspaper, because, Opinion! Maybe they don't have enough people left to monitor letters for content, or enough readers left to fill the page with non-fiction. We don't know.

There's a conversation out here among their readers, but the editors are not participating. It's a pre-internet approach to journalism. 

I guess we could write a letter to the editor. 

Seriously, my draft is below. If you want to sign it, leave your real name in the comments.

To the editors:

Expressing an opinion is a right. Having an opinion published in the newspaper is not a right. The News & Record should not publish letters that contain clear misstatements of fact.

One recent letter to the editor said Women's Hospital might close in October. This is not true. Women's Hospital might close in 2019. Saying otherwise is not an opinion, it's a fallacy. It is reckless for the N&R to publish that kind of misinformation. 

An even more recent letter stated that scientists now have evidence that dinosaurs lived several thousand years ago. This is not true. It should not be printed without commentary in a serious newspaper. 

Maybe the editors can explain their policy and the reasons for it in a note or editorial.

[your name here]

Comments

[Michael Picarelli]

I have no plans to be silent.
Michael A Picarelli

[Al DeCarlo]

It is ridiculous.
Al DeCarlo

[Rosalyn Marhatta]

I agree that opinions should not be printed when the facts are incorrect.

People may have an opinion but without facts to back it up, it's rumor. We know what rumor does. It spreads lies and causes harm.

We have laws about shouting "fire" in a building when there is no fire. And see how fast you get arrested in an airport if you even mention the word bomb.

You are entitled to your opinion, but a newspaper is bound by the truth and must honor that.

[Ronnie Grabon]

I agree. Even opinion letters must be factually correct or have a line beneath indicating the correct information.
Ronnie Grabon

[David Craft]

David B. Craft

Without editing the letter, mention at the bottom, in italics, pertinent information correcting or clarifying the letter.

[Doug H]

Douglas A Hofer

Long-time lurker here, but this gets me out of lurking. When the ability to comment was started, it was at a time when I started learning and becoming more engaged in the issues of the day. Now, however, it's a low-level mud-sling there.

I like David's suggestion.

[Lex]

Add me, please.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=622464993]

Add me.

I read this morning's letter about evolution and just shook my head in disbelief.

David Hoggard

[Anthony Harrison]

Dealing with LTE can be difficult. But it's not that hard to publish meaningful, accurate opinions and sort out the crazy talk.

Anthony Harrison
Former Opinion Section Editor, The Guilfordian.

[Ann Nash]

I agree. Falsehoods have no place here.

[H Jimison]

Add me.

[Gwen Gosney Erickson]

Well said. I'll sign my name to that.

[Ashley F. Wall]

I agree. Ashley F. Wall

[hartzman]

George Hartzman

[Richard Yarbrough]

I'm in, as well.

Richard L. Yarbrough

[Dale Edwards]

Dale Edwards

[David Wharton]

In today's LTEs we read, "Early colonists did not want a 'state church'". LOL.

But I have a question: should your principle apply to opinion columns as well? For example, Leonard Pitts recently misstated Charles Murray's conclusions in The Bell Curve. Should the editors correct or comment on things like that as well -- and do they have the resources to do so?

[Fec]

Light the Wet Fart.

[Marylin Karmel]

One is entitled to his or her own opinion; but not to his or her own FACTS. Marylin Karmel

[David Bulluck]

I agree, Ed.

[Lex]

@David Wharton: I think the better idea there is to contact the source, i.e., the syndicate or the writer's home base (in Pitts's case, the Miami Herald). But if THEY won't fact-check their columnists (and George Freaking Will is living proof that they won't), I don't see why it should be the N&R's responsibility.

[Andrew Brod]

Though you'd like to think that the N&R would stop running a columnist who's a serial offender in that regard.

[Tim Warmath]

I'm in!

[Tom Lassiter]

So, the letter hit newsprint today. What a ludicrous editor's note/response.

[Dale]

"Occasionally not all inaccuracies are caught."

Like when the letter is written by Gary Marschall.