TS - Clearing the e-mail air

Clearing the e-mail air
Charles Winkler
Article Launched:09/20/2005 09:39:00 AM PDT

A double standard in the Times-Standard?

Far from it, although a local weekly would have you believe otherwise.

It starts with Richard Salzman's reprehensible sending of letters to the editor under phony names to falsely manufacture public opinion. Every newspaper that printed the letters, including this one, has denounced the action.

Recently, the editor of Rob Arkley's Eureka Reporter, Glenn Franco Simmons, phoned Police Chief Kenneth Thrailkill in Trinidad, where Salzman lives, to ask for an investigation into whether the phony letters constituted a crime. The call led to a criminal complaint, although Simmons may not have realized that would happen.

As he noted at the time, “I understand that by phoning him and asking for an investigation, I have essentially filed a complaint even though I didn't sign anything.”

We, too, considered filing a complaint -- on purpose -- because we were also outraged. But we stopped to think carefully about the ramifications. A newspaper best serves its goals of reporting accurately, fairly and objectively when it reports the news, and not becomes the news, in criminal matters.

Also, the main evidence in such a case is the original e-mails from Salzman himself. That's right, the originals containing a writer's street address, phone number and specific computer address.

Of course, that information is held in trust by a newspaper. Along with all other unpublished material, like notes and confidential sources, a newspaper should vigorously resist releasing such private material.

That's a basic First Amendment right and a key part of journalistic integrity. That's essentially why Judith Miller of The New York Times has been incarcerated for two and a half months after refusing to testify about her source in the Valerie Plame case. Protecting all unpublished material is simply that important.

In addition, once you release some e-mails in a legal case, it's hard to shut Pandora's box. What else will the prosecution or defense go looking for in your e-mails, or other communication, besides what you've already released?

However, when asked by the police, Arkley's Reporter turned over the e-mails in question, including unpublished material such as the letter writer's street and computer addresses and phone number.

Last week, the weekly called me for my opinion on the matter. I said:

“The proper role of a newspaper is to report the news, not become a part of it. Also, in rashly filing a criminal complaint in this case, a newspaper would then be asked to give up its confidential unpublished material. From my perspective, I can't imagine any newspaper voluntarily doing that. Such unpublished material, such as raw e-mails from the public, are specifically protected under state shield laws. It's also a matter of journalistic integrity and First Amendment rights.”

This week in a column, Simmons took me to task. He said, in part:

“I don't see a problem with turning over e-mailed letters to the editor to law enforcement if I believe a crime has been committed. Plus, I believe those letters are in the public domain and were published anyway.” 

Not quite. Unpublished material -- private addresses and phone numbers -- were also turned over.

It should be noted that Richard Salzman and Rob Arkley are bitter political enemies, a fact not mentioned by Simmons, who works for Arkley.

But what if a crime is suspected -- isn't that different, as Simmons says?

Frankly, I don't think journalistic ethics should operate on a sliding scale.

Salzman was dead wrong in his actions. But a newspaper shouldn't compromise its integrity by agreeing to release private, personal information about somebody it doesn't like, or feels wronged by.

Simmons also said: “If I remember correctly, the Times-Standard published private e-mails from Rob Arkley to Richard without Arkley's permission. Where was the Times-Standard's self-righteous chest thumping for protecting ‘raw' e-mails and its ‘journalistic integrity' for publishing ‘raw' e-mails?”

Rather than call that memory incorrect, let's just say it was highly selective. Here's what happened.

In September 2004, Salzman sent out an e-mail to a large number of people accusing then City Council candidate Rex Bohn of running a “sleazy” campaign. A recipient, angered at the missive, released the e-mail to the Times-Standard, and a front-page story was generated on Salzman's e-mail.

Two months later, it was Salzman's turn. He released to the media e-mails he had received from Arkley, and which he claimed were overly strong and perhaps threatening. That also generated a front-page story.

In neither case did we release “raw” personal, private information. Rather, we treated both cases the same.

Simmons goes on to say: “So, using the Times-Standard's distorted logic, here is how I understand its policy. E-mails sent to the Times-Standard will be protected, but confidential e-mails between private individuals are fair game for publication -- despite those e-mails being considered by a private party as confidential. Why the double standard?”

Actually, the two issues aren't even related. The cases of the Salzman and Arkley e-mails were treated the same: Public figures popping off at each other, with -- in both cases -- recipients of the e-mails releasing the information voluntarily and publicly.

By contrast, private information in letters to the editor submitted to us by letter writers will remain unpublished and unreleased, whether it's e-mailed, faxed or hand written. Whether we like the person or not. Protecting that unpublished material is a journalism basic. Other media outlets, however, may have a lower threshold.

Chest thumping on First Amendment rights and readers' privacy? You bet. And I plan to keep up the drumbeat.