Mediaboss Marketing

By Jim Slusher

When we think about freedom of speech, it sometimes becomes important to discuss the difference between editing and censorship.

The debate has special relevance for people who bristle at the actions of social media companies like Twitter and Facebook that set standards of conduct for people wanting access to their platforms and that may restrict or block access to users the companies believe violate them. We deal with such issues at times even at our own level as we try to moderate civil and responsible discussions in the comments sections of our stories online.

But the distinction can reach -- and frankly does to some degree almost daily -- to the level of letters to the editor the newspaper publishes. It was, indeed, the centerpiece of a rather unpleasant conversation I had recently with a letter writer who complained that we were "censoring" him by refusing to publish without any changes a letter he submitted. We questioned some matters of fact as he described them, and we were concerned about accusations and condemnations of specific individuals we could not easily confirm. Although he acknowledged that "it's your newspaper and you can print or not print anything you want," he repeatedly condemned us (me, to be specific) for our "censorship" of his views.

I contended, and contend here, that we were not "censoring" him. We were insisting that he edit his writing to conform to certain minimum levels of civility and precision. We were willing to publish the letter if edited reasonably, but not in its present form. This may seem much like arm wrestling over semantics, but it's an important distinction. Certainly, the writer could find another outlet for expressing his ideas if he did not like the editing we required. We just felt it would not be responsible for us to present the letter in our publication. Is that censorship or editing? Perhaps it depends on your frame of reference.

And here I must add that regular readers of our letters to the editor will note that our standards of civility and precision are decidedly lenient. We want to allow a generally free and open conversation about issues that energize people in our communities, so we are very generous in what we permit. We do, however, insist on some levels of decorum and verifiability.

I have hanging in my office a framed poster of an Ernest Hemingway quote I find fundamental to good writing of any kind. "Write drunk," it declares in large type enclosed in a prominent dark circle. Then, added pointedly below, it says simply "edit sober."

It is probably useful -- not to mention cathartic -- for us to let our ideas flow with intemperate fervor on topics about which we care passionately. But once we have poured all that sputum and bile onto the page, it behooves us all to return to our thoughts with a little sober reflection to spruce up or clear away the messy parts.

When it comes to writing, which is a very intimate activity, we may not always be able to recognize objectionable elements in our own work. This I know from personal experience. But we should not assume that those who come after us to do the cleaning are out to censor or repress our ideas. Often, they just want to edit them to make them clearer and, well, more palatable for others to read.

jslusher@dailyherald.com

Link:
On editing, censorship and sobriety in writing - Chicago Daily Herald