My LTTE gets published today but their edits set me up for slander!

[cyberpj]

My LTTE was printed today. Sunday paper=best exposure so I'm glad. I'm just not sure why they felt they had to change the title and the paragraphing. I believe mine was better, plus they set me up for slander since I never said he actually leaked to Novak before and they put it that way in my title!

What I sent:

ROVE SHOULD BE FIRED THIS TIME TOO -

In 2003 the White House assured America that Karl Rove, the senior adviser to the president, never discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame with members of the media. Last week we saw proof that Mr. Rove was actually a major player in that act of treason.

Those of us who may remember the politics of 1992, might also recall that Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of George Bush Sr. Why? For allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist and fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to the very same Robert Novak involved in the Plame leak.

George W. Bush promised to fire any individuals involved in the Plame Affair. If Karl Rove has committed a crime, which will be up to investigators to decide, he has threatened the national security of the United States and must face the fullest consequences of the law. But for now, President Bush should make good on his promise and fire Karl Rove.

=====================================
What they printed:

This is not the first time that Rove leaked to Novak

In 2003 the White House assured America that Karl Rove, the senior adviser to the president, never discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame with members of the media. Last week we saw proof that Mr. Rove was actually a major player in that act of treason.

Those of us who may remember the politics of 1992 might also recall that Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of George Bush Sr. Why? For allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist and fund raiser Robert Mosbacher to the very same Robert Novak involved in the Plame leak. George W. Bush promised to fire any individuals involved in the Plame affair. If Karl Rove has committed a crime, which will be up to investigators to decide, he has threatened the national security of the United States and must face the fullest consequences of the law.

But for now, President Bush should make good on his promise and fire Karl Rove.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Egalitariat]

1. If you didn't write it, they can't get you for slander

Plus, Karl Rove and Robert Novak are public figures, and you can write or say just about anything w/o it being slander or libel.

[JimmyJazz]

2. OMG! I read your LTTE this morning.

:hi: Cool!

I'm sending you a private message!

[cyberpj]

15. YAY! Another local DUer.

I think you've been mentioned to me by LynneSin in the Delaware forum but I wasn't able to make the June meetup.

:hi: Maybe next time!

[NMDemDist2]

3. it appears the edit was just to change your title and the paragraph

breaks

not sure why you're upset, well done!

[OrlandoGator]

8. Ummm...how exactly was the content of the letter altered?

I don't understand how changing the indentation suddenly makes your letter libelous.

[cyberpj]

11. Happy it was printed - but their title change says Rove Leaked Before

when it's never been investigated/proven and I carefully used "alleged" in my letter.

I'm upset because their changes to title and paragraphing were first - unnecessary and second - WRONG.

[napi21]

4. Every time my local paper prints one of my LTTE's they change

the title too! I always thought they did that because they thought they were better at eye catching headlines than I was.

[Bill McBlueState]

7. that's part of it

Also, they need the headline to have a very precise length. I've never tried to write my own headline for an LTTE; I think they pretty much ignore them.

[cyberpj]

12. Maybe I was over-reaching - but I thought the line

Rove Should Be Fired This Time TOO - was eye-catching. People would want to know what other time he was fired. I thought it would get them to read it without saying he leaked before - which was never proven.

Anyway - everyone here is right. I'm just glad it got in there.

[Divernan]

5. You're golden. Just save your original letter.

Not to nit-pick, but slander refers to spoken/oral statements, including broadcasts, phone calls, etc. Written statements, such as LTTEs would come under the legal term, "libel".

As the earlier poster said, that headline was written by someone on the paper's staff, not you, so you're OK.

Great letter!

[Oversea Visitor]

6. The title is bad

But then again the word leak is use all over the news report.
So many reference in the MSM on that.

[H2O Man]

9. It's fine.

Most editors do not allow those writing LTTE to title them. And, actually, the title they used may be more likely to get attention from the casual reader. That's a good thing. The editors are perhaps adding a phrase that endorses your letter.

But the most important part is, of course, your letter! Great job! You make your points in a short, well-organized manner. You LTTE is a fantastic example of what a letter should be. Thank you for writing it.

[cyberpj]

13. Thanks. I will remember not to title them in the future.

That way I won't be upset at changes. (Guess I think I'm an editor at heart...)

At least I've learned the part about keeping it short and concise.

[H2O Man]

18. Your letter is VERY GOOD.

I'd give it an A+. I hope that you are proud of it, because with that letter, you have accomplished two of the tasks that the Founding Fathers advocated as being essential for democracy -- speaking up, and using the press. I am convinced that LTTE are one of the most important things any citizen can do. Again, I thank you for a job well done!

[marions ghost]

10. good letter

congratulations. Newspapers always use their own headlines.
They changed this one to more accurately express your point. Also they made your message have more impact by leaving the stronger statement (to fire Karl Rove) at the end. Don't worry, these are minor changes. Newspapers know very well what is libelous and how to present LTTEs. They won't print them at all if they think there's no basis for your negative opinion.

[cyberpj]

14. There's always another point of view, isn't there?

I was upset at the way the changed my paragraphs and you believe it has more impact their way.

Lesson learned. And thanks for your input.

[marions ghost]

17. I write

articles of a non-political nature. But even so, I have been been edited severely--even hacked to death--on several occasions. (You haven't lived until you've had whatever you wrote come back totally unrecognizable). I've also done a little time as an editor so I see it from both sides. It can be hard to believe, but generally editors truly mean to help, not hurt. Sometimes you can detect a bias against what you wrote, but unless it's HUGE, it's usually wiser to just go with it, accepting that editors have total control of what appears in their publications. If they had completely rejected your letter, then I'd draw some negative conclusions about their views on the current political scene and go to a different publication. But if you get a little light editing here and there...no biggie.

You did a good job. You made a good point that the average reader might have missed and expressed it very well. Do it again! I'm convinced that LTTEs are a good way to get some info out there, esp to the large numbers of Americans who do not follow the news as closely as we do. It's a critical time to be heard.

[unblock]

16. you're lucky they didn't drop entire points from your letter

it's not uncommon to see an entire sentence of even paragraph dropped, possibly making the writer look illiterate or disjointed.

don't worry about headlines, editors reserve that for themselves, it's how they justify their pay. i mean, anyone can proofread, but who can come up with those curt, catchy headlines?

[cyberpj]

19. You're right... You're right... I know you're right......

(just a quick "When Harry Met Sally" moment there)


But I have had entire portions of previous letters deleted and a few that didn't even resemble what I'd sent so I know what you mean.