To: The Dallas Morning News
Date: January 11, 2007
Subject: Correspondence with the Letters Coordinator of The Dallas Morning News
Result: not printed


Warning: The following review of my history and concerns with The Dallas Morning News is not for the squeamish and easily-bored, or the time-constrained.  Really, unless you just love me, I'd skip it.  A much shorter letter that's similar in tone but without the details is dated "10-24-06" on my Letters menu.


This correspondence began with my letter to the editor under the heading, "too much democracy", in response to the newspaper's re-design and related marketing campaign.  Nancy Upson was a reader who requested bigger comics and puzzles than the size they were printing, whose request was printed on numerous full-page ads before and after her wish was granted:

________________________________________________________________


letter to the editor: "too much democracy"

Dear Editor,

You're now printing bigger comics and puzzles in their own special daily section, making Nancy Upson famous for her desire for big comics and puzzles. You've added more recipes in the Food section for those who like to cook. In the Religion section, you say you want to foster "a community-wide conversation about faith, spirituality and values," for those who are interested in the other world.

Now why can't you apply your new-found devotion to the readers to giving them a special daily section for the expression of their views as written in Letters to the Editor - so that your commitment to "the free flow of ideas" is more than just a good (former) marketing line? Then maybe there would be room for people to say things in their own style and voices, rather than your edited and revised version of their thoughts. And by letting people print their e-mail addresses with their letters, you could foster a community-wide conversation about things that really matter in this world.

Nope. You don't want to overdo it with that democracy stuff.

Thank you, John Vehon
________________________________________________________________

Response to my letter from Joanna England, Letters Coordinator of The News:

Mr. Vehon,

We provide several forums for our readers, one of which is the daily "Letters" column you see on the editorial page. The others are located in your Metro section every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We print far more letters than any other paper in Texas. Not only that, but we have an entire page dedicated to just letters, page 3P in our Points section, which comes out every Sunday. 

We also have a few community programs with our opinions pages in the Metro section that allow regular folks to contribute to our pages in full-length columns, signed with e-mail addresses to facilitate further dialogue. They come from all walks of life, from high-school seniors, to teachers to professionals and retirees, they write for our pages regularly and vigorously.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions you had about our letters forums. We appreciate your dialogue and contribution to one of the liveliest forums for informed debate in America.

Joanna England
Letters Coordinator
The Dallas Morning News

__________________________________________________________________________

My response to Ms. England:

Dear Ms. England,

Yes Ma'am. All I know is, number one, that I have presented unique ideas and perspectives on many important subjects that your readers have not been allowed to see, and your easy acceptance of that is totally disingenuous. To say you have a large amount of quantity compared to anybody else means nothing.

I daresay your comics and puzzles sections were already are more extensive than many other newspapers', but that doesn't prevent you from improving it further and making a very large deal about it your marketing campaign about how responsive you are to readers. If only your commitment to democratic exchange came anywhere close to your great devotion to sports, covered to the nth degree in infinite detail, with many special sections in addition to the large daily sections you already have, plus a large amount of additional metro coverage.

Number two, yes, you let some "regular folks" have their say - and very rarely is any of it new or surprising in any way. Too bad for your readers that I'm not "regular", so that therefore you cut me and my ideas and perspectives out, and I'm not allowed in the forum you mentioned, or in your Viewpoints section. And just why can't people have their e-mail addresses in their letters to the editor, if they desire? Again, because there are strict limits on your commitment to democracy, versus your much larger interest in maintaining your influence and control.

They've got you hoodwinked there, Ma'am, so that you accept and are a full participant in their lies.

Present my full case, which can easily be found on my web site, to any kid you know, including aspiring journalists - that is, people who still have basic honesty - and see what they say.

John Vehon

__________________________________________________________________________

Ms. England's response:

Mr. Vehon

Regardless of your perceptions, your letters have appeared on our pages several times. I hope you remember that we have a rule of only publishing letter writers once every 30 days to allow everyone an equitable chance of appearing on our pages. I am sorry that you feel that we are doing an unsatisfactory job of publishing your letters as much as you would prefer, but we enforce this rule regardless of a person's views or political ideology. It's nothing against you, Mr. Vehon.

And when I say that we appreciate your contribution to our forum, I mean every bit. Without dedicated readers and letter writers like yourself, our forum wouldn't be the same. I know that as long as the letters we publish provoke thoughts and responses, we're doing our job, which is to foster a lively forum for informed debate.

According to state and federal privacy laws, we are liable for contact information submitted for verification purposes only. That is why we are only allowed to publish a letter writers' name and city of residence, to do otherwise would invite lawsuits and liabilities.

Also, you are invited to apply to become one of our Community Voices every time we solicit our readers for applications. We do this annually. For more information about this program, send us an e-mail at communityopinions@dallasnews.com and inquire about applying to become a Community Voice.

Again, Mr. Vehon, we appreciate your letters, your dialogue and your voice, and I hope that although we will enforce our 30-day rule, you will continue to write us letters sharing your unique point of view.

Best,

Joanna England

__________________________________________________________________________

my lengthy response to Ms. England with details

Dear Ms. England,
I do believe that you probably realize I will never be persuaded as to the largess and the basic honesty and integrity of The Dallas Morning News and its policies, and its employees, and that really you are trying to convince yourself.

To address the points made by you to me, first, concerning your 30-day rule, I don't think that's unreasonable. On the other hand, for the record, I know I have seen that rule bent for at least one reader, Paul Smith.

Concerning your statement about how you are subject to lawsuits if you were to print people's e-mail addresses with their letters, which would be highly conducive to democratic exchange among your readers, let me say that I have come across instances in my life where a company wanted to evade doing what they should be doing with the statement that "it's against the law" - when further investigation showed there was no such law. I can't believe that if I tell you in advance that it's okay to list my e-mail address with my name, which it's easy enough for you to confirm that it is mine, that there would be any possibility of legal liability on your part. That's just something y'all don't want to do, pure and simple, so you make up stuff about "the law".

Meanwhile, you certainly have no problems printing many people's affiliations with their names in letters to the editor. I've asked 2 or 3 times for an explanation of why my affiliation, radicalview.com, can't be printed, but without the politeness of a response. Again, what determines your actions and policies has nothing to do with legality; it's just what do you want, and what do you not want to do.

Of course, one way you could include the name of my web site within your existing policies would be if you printed one of my Viewpoints submissions. The 2 or 3 I have sent for that have presented unique perspectives on popular and important topics, even though you print the same old ideas and perspectives on those topics all the time. And the fact that, in that forum, you would have to print my affiliation is exactly why I'm ineligible for it. And yes Ma'am, I do think it's personal, and that in Viewpoints, as with many letters I've written, if anybody but me (I) had written them, they would have been printed.

I would now like to review the record of exactly what you have printed of mine, which I'm basing on what's on the "Letters" menu of my web site, which is mostly complete. On that, I have not posted every letter I ever wrote, some of which have been dumb and not worthwhile, I admit, but I do believe I have everything you've printed. In fact, there are letters on my web site that I would just as soon remove, but have kept only because you did print it; I wouldn't want anybody to say I don't post the letters you print, like I'm trying to distort your record.

Just speaking of numbers, going back to 1997 - the year my web site began (which was basically one of the first "blogs" there was), here is what my records show:

1997 - 0/8; 1998 - 0/6; 1999 - 0/7; 2000 - 1/11;
2001 - 1/6 (not printed, but posted on "Cyber Letters");
2002 - 1/12; 2003 - 0/2; 2004 - 1/11 2005 - 1/13 (plus 1 in Business section);
2006 - 4/13

Now let's consider what got printed, exactly:

Going back to the one you printed in 2000, submitted on May 25 (all dates mentioned are the dates I sent them), about the folly of President Bush's 60-billion-dollar missile system to protect us against about the least likely delivery method for a nuclear attack, that was a good one, with a message that needed to be heard.

My next letter that you didn't completely reject was a year later, on May 22, 2001. It wasn't actually printed in the Letters section, but you did put it in your "Cyber Letters". Of course, few people are so interested in your Letters section that they're going to go beyond the actual newspaper to see it. Though I recommended no particular course of action there, as I did in the previous letter, it did have at least some prophetic truth in it that I think would have had a general interest and been well worth putting in the printed Letters. I was, in that letter, the first person that I heard of to observe that the oil consumption of developing countries (without mentioning China and India specifically) was going to put a lot of additional pressure on our own oil needs.

I also predicted there, which I still believe and wonder only how long it's going to take, that we will one day say we have no choice but to take over the oil supply of one or more countries, by whatever means necessary. Of course, on that, the longer we wait, the harder it's going to be, so we probably better get going on it. Or Plan B would be to become very good friends and supporters of countries like Venezuela, but that doesn't seem too likely, thinking of history, where the only people we have supported in many developing countries have been evil dictators whose sole virtue was they served our economic interests. We couldn't even say, in those many cases, "We'll give you our help and support, but you have to be nice to your people." All we cared about was to get and take what we wanted, and screw everything else. That's us in history. And we wonder why so many people in the world hate us. (Now there's an addendum I would not have been allowed to make in that letter, even in the Cyber version).

You did print my letter from 3-22-02, "Republicans worried about free speech", and that was good. Although, I do recall (without going back to look) that I was dissatisfied with the editing job, and felt that was one it would have been good for us to communicate on before you printed it. One thing I do recall about the editing job on that letter, which responded to the Republican idea that any controls on campaign contributions interfered with their freedom of speech, was when I said if they wanted "free speech", they should make direct statements of what's on their mind, like in the newspaper. "Then they can sign their name." Welp, I guess there was one of those things that had to be removed due to reasons of "length or clarity" (to which you've now added "style", giving yourselves all kinds of further latitude for censorship). Nevertheless, I was actually surprised that you printed that letter, and thought it was commendable.

There were no letters printed in 2003 (when I moved to Cleveland, Ohio, in an unsuccessful effort to find a city that likes me; speaking of the powers that be), so to summarize up to now, that's two letters printed from 1997 to 2003, and one on Cyber Letters.

Moving on to 2004, a year when I sent quite a few very interesting and worthwhile letters, with unique and well-presented views and suggestions on popular and important topics - at a time when you generally printed many statements and representations of the standard and accepted views on those events and circumstances - you printed what to me is one of the least noteworthy letters I have written, about prescription drug prices. That's one of those that I've retained on my web site at all only because you printed it. As I said on the copy there, that was "something they printed so they could say they printed something."

2005 was another year when I presented a number of unique, interesting, and worthwhile views that remained hidden from your readers - again, when variations of the views you did allow them to hear were heard many times - including such subjects as the "pro life" movement (3-29); education (5-17, submitted to Viewpoints); China (7-27); the debate about "intelligent design" (8-12, also sent to Viewpoints); and the energy problems in our country (9-1). With all that, you printed one entry in the Letters section (5-11), where I said, regarding the Wright Amendment, that we ought to close Love Field altogether (an approved view that was presented several other times after my letter said it first, I believe). Again, that's one that I would consider pretty trivial, and I wouldn't even keep it on my web site if you hadn't printed it.

In addition, I did have a letter printed in the Business section (7-14-05), which suggested that parents ought to take a greater role in the direct financing of their children's education by applying the proceeds from their per-child tax deductions to education. Again, that was an idea I felt would have been good for the general audience reading the Letters section, but there was one very commendable thing that did occur with that letter. That was when Laura Jacobus did not simply surprise me with an edited version of my letter, which is standard practice in the Letters section - to the point, as I say on the home page of my web site, where there have been 2 or 3 times when I would have preferred "my" letter would not have even been printed. Rather, she collaborated with me through e-mails to arrive at a mutually acceptable letter. I have suggested 2 or 3 times to people in your department how respectful that would be to your readers, but without the politeness of a response. I guess that's another one of those considerations that would be "against the law".

Finally came 2006, relatively a banner year for my letters, with 4 of 19 letters printed. I'm not counting "killing Saddam" in the total written, since he was dead by the time you got it, or the one I sent on March 12 to the Religion section, which they printed. On the other hand, of the 4 that were printed, I would count two as one, since my first letter about school financing, on May 10, was cut short, so that it took another one on October 14 to finish the job. In fact, I don't have the second one on my web site, since it was basically covered in the first one.

The one you printed from July 10 was good and worthwhile, about how if President Bush did not always take the position that he "doesn't deal with hypothetical questions" - referring to countries like North Korea and Iran - maybe he wouldn't have gotten us in so much trouble in Iraq, where he also neglected to consider the "hypothetical questions". True, I thought you filtered out a bit of my personality, style, and attitude, but I was not dissatisfied with your rendition. So, good job.

That leaves the one on Paris Hilton. On the surface, that might be considered one of my lightweight letters, just because it is about Miss Hilton. True, you again filtered out a good deal of my basic attitude - including hints of my skepticism about The Dallas Morning News's whole "limited space" policies and practices - and what I might call my "style". Moreover, there would have been room for what you removed if you hadn't put a repeat of the picture of Paris Hilton from the previous week under my letter, which was entirely superfluous and unnecessary. In fact, I do think y'all often make strategic use of unneeded pictures - sometimes very large pictures - to be able to further limit and control the "limited space" you have.

Nevertheless, I was again surprised and pleased that you printed that letter, just because you did allow me to express a bit of my philosophy, and also to make a statement about "people who aren't what they say they are," and all that - realizing, as I would figure you did, that The Dallas Morning News and its employees are high on my list of the people who belong in that category. Of course the readers wouldn't have necessarily gotten that idea.

But then again, reviewing the "Letters" menu on my web site, there were a number of my letters in 2006 that presented seldom-or-never-heard views on important topics that absolutely should not have been cut out from the public dialogue. I would include in that group my thoughts about "people making too much money" (4-10); about President Bush, himself, working directly with Kim Jong Il of North Korea - "out at the ranch" - when the "6 party talks" have obviously had very limited effectiveness (6-21 and 7-8); my unique thoughts about stem cell research (7-26) and the financing of political campaigns (10-17); the whole idea of The Dallas Morning News making political recommendations (10-24) - which somebody else was allowed to question in a letter some time later, I believe after the election, but by and large that whole view was given very short shrift - and, finally, the re-statement of my contrary view that I've presented a time or two before, speaking in favor of President Castro in Cuba (12-17) and saying we have harmed his country and people, and have directly caused and incited much of the unhappiness that is there.

And then, of course, there's no way The Dallas Morning News in any guise whatever would ever have an interest in my ideas about companies that could be started, as noted in my letter on the frequent lament, expressed in the article I responded to, of how what we need in Dallas and in Texas, by golly, is "innovation" (11-16). That's something concerning which I've invited quite a few of your "journalists" to hear what I have to say, but with not one brave and curious responder.

Going back in history, one thing I think few people would question today is that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea for us to support the Muslim rebels with money, training, and sophisticated weapons in their fight against the USSR - speaking of the future leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But back when it was happening, nobody questioned it - except me, in my letter (on my web site) dated 12-13-87, but there was just no room for that idea to see the light of day. Likewise, nowadays you hear a lot of people saying we should have taken care of business in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq, but back before it happened, just about nobody was - or, at least, if they were, it got next-to-zero coverage. There was no room for me to say it in my letter of 11-17-02. Going further back from there, there was no room for me to question the whole concept of President Bush's policy, in the wake of "September 11", that he "will not work with terrorists" (9-30-01).

Sometimes I hear people speak of ideas and say they are "good" or even "important". I believe my ideas about supporting the rebels and about taking care of business in Afghanistan, would fit into that category. But "due to limited space" (your old explanation) you kept them hidden. An honest review of the letters on my Letters menu would show a lot of additional ideas that are at least very good and interesting, and maybe 2 or 3 more that could be considered "important", but which remained hidden by you.

Here is something I would like you to consider. Why don't you ever see in the Sports section an admonition that there are just "far too many sports events" for you to cover them all? As I've said to y'all many times, again with no polite response from anybody to explain the difference, you devote huge amounts of unlimited space to cover every little everything pertaining to sports, without regard for the fact that there are many people who couldn't care less about it. Your presumption that your readers have such a deep and abiding care and concern and interest in sports, but very little in democracy - based on the relative amount of space and resources you allow for each - I would call cynical in the extreme.

Oh, you say, The Dallas Morning News prints more letters from readers than many other newspapers. That's like a kid saying to his parents that all his friends make D's in school, so they should be very happy and satisfied with his C's. Obviously, with all the quantity of letters to the editor that you constantly rant about - "quantity" is the skirt you hide behind - there is obviously a large amount of interest, which you ignore. But then, of course, all the while you're heralding your great commitment - which is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

In conclusion, the fact is, I have never questioned that you do have limited space in your newspaper for people's opinions. Especially since I'm sure that you receive a lot of letters on many subjects that say basically the exact same things, and I don't feel it's incumbent upon you to print more than a "representative" selection of those. However, in cases - which I'm sure exist with others besides me - where people do have unique ideas about the events and problems of the world and this country, then you do have a responsibility - as the Constitutionally franchised and protected watchdog that you are - to find a way for those views to be heard. It is completely unconscionable that you don't.

Put another way, if I were in the position of The Dallas Morning News and I had a real and true desire to support and encourage the "free flow of ideas" - to cite one of your former marketing slogans - then I would not so easily accept that you have to keep things hidden due to a lack of space. Rather - if that was really an issue at all, which I don't think it is for a very profitable enterprise like The Dallas Morning News - then my attitude would be, what can I do, in spite of my limitations, to make sure that everything that should be heard and should be within the public debate will be?

In my case, I make it easy for you - I have a web site for you to refer your readers to. Personally, I think that, given my history of writing letters to the editor, in which I have presented so many good and unique and interesting - and quite a few times, just plain fun - views and perspectives, that y'all should be writing an article about me and my web site. Or, if there are others like me, write an article about all of us. If you were true and honest, you would. But you're not. And so therefore you do all you can to keep me and my web site hidden.

So no Ma'am, I cannot be persuaded by you.

Sincerely,

John Vehon
radicalview.com