Refusing to print letter

One advantage of weekly and daily newspapers is giving readers an opportunity to comment on stories printed in those papers. Though the Federal Communications Commission grants licenses for radio and television stations with a pledge of "serving the public," with the exception of local talk radio, listeners and viewers are shut out on air from dialogue with other listeners and viewers. We think that occurs in part because, collectively, we in the media are rather thin-skinned when it comes to criticism.

When we criticize the Richmond Times- Dispatch (RTD) in this column, we sometimes hear from them. We always point out that this column is a commentary and is clearly identified by being on the opinions page. And we always offer to print a letter to the editor, though uniformly, they decline. The RTD does take occasional written swipes at the Washington Post and the New York Times. The rule of thumb is: criticize larger media, not smaller.

That's another rule we're about to break: ignoring a publication with less circulation - the Village News in Chester.

Two months ago, Enon resident Claude Payne alerted us to a story in the Aug. 13 issue of the Village News. Mr. Payne was upset about the way he and other opponents to a proposed walking/running path in Enon were described in a news story by Editor Mark Fausz - being "just short of mob behavior." (The phrase "mob behavior" sounds like editorializing, but that's not the point of this column.)

More than 50 Enon residents showed up at the August meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC) to oppose the path that we described in our May 21 issue as an "emerging plan call[ing] for a 30-foot easement that winds through the trees and landscape with an eight-foot path of crushed stone for runners, walkers and non-motorized vehicles." Organizers in Enon used our story to generate opposition to the path.

The Village News called our story "misleading... according to Barney McLaughlin," who is a member of PRAC. Mr. Fausz did not contact the Chesterfield Observer to report our side of the alleged "misleading" story. In a news story, when you report something as "misleading," you should allow the person, or in this case - the Chesterfield Observer - to respond.

Last May, the Chesterfield Observer contacted Mr. McLaughlin for the details of the plan for a news story. He provided us with the width of the easement and the path, indicating the plan was still conceptual. Thus, we described the plan as "emerging."

During the three months between our May 21 issue and the August PRAC meeting no one advised us that anything in the story was incorrect or misleading. After the Village News reported it was "misleading," we placed six phone calls to Mr. McLaughlin to discuss the accuracy of our story and the one in the Aug. 13 issue of the Village News. He never returned our calls.

Commenting about the fairness of not allowing us to respond, we suggested to Mr. Fausz a letter to the editor might be forthcoming. "Send it to me," replied Fausz. "We'll print it."

A week or so later, we did. On Oct. 8, we asked Fausz if our letter had run in the Village News. He said he declined to print it "because it's my prerogative," adding "we're competitors."

We asked Mr. Fausz if the Village News censored other letters to the editor. He responded "no," but later acknowledged (with prompting) that a letter from Robert Johnson in Enon on the same subject was also omitted for the same reason.

Competitiveness, in our view, is not a very good reason when accuracy and fairness are at issue. In addition to offering to print letters from the RTD, last year we printed a letter from the editor of Style Weekly who complained about being the subject of one of these columns. Even though he has banned letters from the Chesterfield Observer, we would print a letter from Mr. Fausz concerning this column. It's only fair.