Newspaper Agenda rewrites letter to the editor.

Florida Today | Jan 30, 2004 | Martin McClellan

[Ravenstar]

Private land not county's sphere:(purportedly) by Martin McClellan, Port St. John, Florida.

The County Commission and the Natural Resources Management Office are considering a proposal called the Consolidated Environmental Ordinance and the Critical Habitat Ordinance, which were formerly called the Significant Environmental Areas Ordinance.

The (sic) say it is not a taking of land, because the land remains in private hands. But the dictionary defines to "own" as: "a. to have or hold as property: possess, b. to have power over: control"

If these ordinances pass, they will require the owners of the preserved land to follow certain protection procedures as shown in the Natural Resources Management Office plan.

In my opinion, that means the Natural Resources office will have taken control of that land.

It also violates the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which protects against our government taking private land for public use without just compensation.

The ordinances would require that 50 percent of land in larger parcels be held as green spaces. Although the county would offer greater building density and other advantage (sic) for builders in echange, I say this is not just compensation.

[Ravenstar]

This is the letter that Florida Today of Brevard County printed after I sent them the following letter on the Significant Environment Areas Ordinance or SEAs Ordinance which would mandate that 50% of an individuals lands, as determined by the eco groups and the County Natural Resource Management Office, be kept pristeen which the owner would be subject to fines of $500 per incidence per quarter acre:

The County Commission in the guise of Sue Carlson, Nancy Higgs and perhaps Truman Scarborough along with the Natural Resources Management Office have declared war on the private property owners of Brevard. This declaration comes in the form of the Consolidated Environmental Ordinance (CEO) along with the Critical Habitat Ordinance (CHO). Put these two renamed ordinances together and you have the former Significant Environmental Areas ordinance (SEAs). I personally think they changed this acronym because these ordinances do too close to what the former acronym sounds like and that is seize property.

The powers that be say this is not a taking of land so let's look at the definition of own, as in to own property. Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary defines it as follows: "own 1a: to have or hold as property:possess b. to have power over: Control.

If these ordinances pass environmental groups, some international, via the Natural Resources Management Office will have power over half the land in the Critical Habitat Zone. They will have taken control of that land.

This violates the applicable part of the Fifth Amendment which states that no one shall be deprived of property without due process of law and that no property may be taken for public use without just compensation. Violating the Constitution of the United States is not within the power of the County Commission.

[Ravenstar]

I haven't been able to find a libel lawyer locally that isn't employed by the newspaper. The original post is what they wrote for me in response to the letter you see in the first comment section. Unless I find a principled lawyer in the area that also does libel cases the Newspaper, and I am sure they knew this, will get away with libel because it fit their agenda. NOTE: I never write in such a letter, "In my opinion,". I put this up because I am curious just how often this is occurring across the country. Are we seeing the media co-operate with the fascists as they did in Nazi Germany??


Ravenstar

[Fatalist]

I've never seen a newspaper do such a hatchet job on a letter to the editor. It almost looks as if they got your name mixed up with someone else's letter, though there is just barely enough similarity to make that unlikely.

Who added the (sic) in the second paragraph? Are they trying to attribute the typo to your original letter, or is that being said in context of the letter they printed?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[weegee]

It's not something unheard of in the publishing industry (even though it is unethical). Sometimes a letter has even been rewritten to shift from being opposed to something to being a ra-ra cheerleader for it.

The final sentence that begins "In my opinion..." would be the most obvious insulting rewrite.

Push for a retraction and admission of their tactic. Front page too, not something buried deep within.

[weegee]

Actually, I was in error. It was not the "in my opinion" statement, that I thought was the most radical departure (although it was presumptive), it was the final sentence:

"Although the county would offer greater building density and other advantage (sic) for builders in echange, I say this is not just compensation."

The editor just couldn't hold off until after your signature to editorialize. (S)he opted to include a rebuttal in your letter.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Are we seeing the media co-operate with the fascists as they did in Nazi Germany??

The only good thing I can say about the situation was that when it was all over, they hung the Nazi REPORTERS as well.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Well I guess they don't call them editors for nothing.

Looks like probably a composite of two or three submitted letters. I have heard of papers doing this, but when attributed to one writer (presumably you), the practice would seem blatantly dishonest. The original letters, in whole, probably reflected views close to your own, but the finished product seems to emphasize points involved in the issue that are different from the main points you intended to express in your own. And the way they combined sentence fragments into grammatically incorrect sentences, inserting (sic) (literally, as written), they may as well have spit in your face (at least that's the way I'd take it). They are either complete idiots or they were intentionally trying to make you look like one. They owe you, if that is your name, an apology and retraction, with a reprint of the entire letter as presented to them.

Is there a way to legally make them do it? Probably not, but it would be the gentlemanly thing to do nonetheless.

I felt really cheated the one time the local paper left out a single sentence in one of my letters, even though they clearly state they will do that sometimes to conserve space. I was heartened that they recently printed an entire op-ed column I wrote without changing or removing a single word.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[jimtorr]

Wow! The Guard actually printed your column? Dont't they know that you are one of those freepers that Der Spiegel is complaining about? Is it available in the on-line edition? Do you have a link? Can I possibly ask any more questions?

[Ravenstar]

You have it backwards! The letter THEY wrote was posted first! My original is the second letter.

Ravenstar

[Ravenstar]

I added the (sic) to the first letter since it was THEIR errors. I wanted to let the good people of Free Republic know that I know gooder English!

Ravenstar

[Cold Heat]

I carry a copy of the constitution on my dash board.

I have been told that I should not do that or invoke the name of the constitution to a police officer.

I am told that it makes me a perp!

I think that is what you are dealing with here.

[foreverfree]

bump

[sauropod]

Amazing.

ML, can you help?

[Grampa Dave]

Is this left wing fishwrap owned by a big publishing outfit?

We had something similiar happening until pressure forced the local editor and publisher to print exactly what was in the letter or email unless the usual bad stuff was used.

When you find a good a lawyer, send your future letters email with a cc to your lawyer.

[Copernicus]

Newspapers have a long history of printing their editorial agenda over letter writer's signatures.

Usually it consists of subtle alterations in combination with letter selection and headline introduction.

The standard disclaimer is generally along the lines of: Letters may be edited for length and CLARITY (whatever that means)

In the past certain (conservative, oppositional etc.) letter writers have just given up in disgust and stopped submitting material.

Perhaps a website where readers can post the actual text of their letter side-by-side with the published version might be a useful rebuttal to this wide spread industry practice.

It would also be interesting to see the content of letters NEVER published in response to some issue or topic.

Best regards,

[BraveMan]

I added the (sic) to the first letter since it was THEIR errors.

All the spelling errors in the published letter could be an attempt to further marginalize your position by portraying you as lacking a solid, well-rounded education. I find it unfathomable that the errors could accidentally go uncorrected in these days of instant spellchecking, especially from those who make their living through the printed word. This would irritate me most of all!

The spelling errors seem to me to be by design. Maybe I'm just too paranoid . . .

[Ravenstar]

I put the (sic) there because it was an error as they printed their own rewrite of my original letter which is below it in the "comments" section.