Readers write (Aug. 1): Opinion letters

Good discussion regarding whether or not letters to the editor should have a factual basis in order to be printed. My opinion is that they should not. These letters are by definition opinions. An opinion is a belief and may or may not have a factual basis.

Indeed, opinion and fact are antonyms. And even if factuality were a requirement, the commentary editor could hardly be expected to check and verify (or not) every claim made by every letter that is submitted. By discarding all but the most nondebatable letters, the flavor and purpose of the column (and its interest to readers) would be greatly diminished.

Finally, many words (such as "exponential," the subject of some recent debate) have both narrow and broad meanings. When someone says that something has increased exponentially, he is not usually using the term in the narrow, mathematical sense of the word. It is just a more colorful way of saying "a lot."

ROBERT W. CARLSON, PLYMOUTH

• • •

What makes the most sense to me would be to put the letters based on misconception in a special section, or not to publish them at all.

I often cringe when the Star Tribune publishes such letters, because I think it inevitably implies a stamp of approval to some extent of that underlying misconception. But I do think it is useful to know what people are thinking, thus my idea for a special section, despite the obvious difficulty for the Star Tribune to relegating such letters/readers to a "dunce section."

If the Strib doesn't have the heart/spine to do that, I feel not publishing would be best, and let those other opinions come out in readers' commentary online.

Long live the Star Tribune! Thanks for all the good work.

JIM DUSTRUDE, MOUND

• • •

I think that the foremost consideration needs to be realization that publishing a letter lends credibility to the ideas expressed therein, simply because most people will assume that the Star Tribune would not publish nonsense. An immediate follow-up to that is that the Star Tribune only tarnishes its reputation by publishing nonsense, because a significant number of readers will recognize nonsense when they see it.

Publishing letters at random or even selecting representatives of all points of view just leads to a meaningless cacophony. I understand that the newspaper cannot referee every letter that comes in, but I think best effort should be made to filter out blatant nonsense.

I also understand that the purveyors of nonsense will accuse the Star Tribune of editorial bias. To those, I recommend that the Star respond that freedom of the press only applies to people who have presses.

DAVID PERLMAN, NEW HOPE

• • •

Isn't it interesting that some people don't think anything is worth printing if it doesn't agree with their own views? I personally enjoy reading some of the more ridiculous (my perception) letters, as it gives me some sense of who else is out there -- pretty scary sometimes, but necessary for one's own survival strategies.

I do notice, however, that several contributors' names pop up rather frequently. If there are so many submissions on a daily basis, surely these favored few could be put on the back burner for awhile in favor of others.

JEANNE TORMA, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

Thank you for soliciting comments of likes/dislikes about letters to the editor. I look forward every day with enjoyment to "Readers Write," have learned a lot about what people are thinking and have pondered the same questions mentioned in your editor's note.

My concern and criticism is directed to the Star Tribune publisher and staff. Simply: What is ethical, what is honest and what is the responsibility of the newspaper when it puts something into print for mass circulation?

Should not a letter writer who states something as fact be required to provide a reference? When your newspaper prints a news story, is it not responsible to fact-check or be possibly liable?

"Readers Write" is a integral part of the newspaper; you select what is printed. Are you not responsible to fact-check?

The fact that you receive "hundreds of letters a day" does not absolve you of your ethical responsibilities. Hire more staff.

Also, I don't think that the "Readers Write" section should be used by former politicians or current politicians, or for rebuttals by any organization or individual to an unflattering news article. There should be another space for these comments.

DENNIS M. SANSONE, BLOOMINGTON

• • •

What if I were to write a letter saying that Rupert Murdoch is known to eat 10 raw kittens for breakfast? Maybe you'd publish that without a quick Google search. Someone will follow up with a letter pointing out the untruth of it all, right? Maybe.

As of now, you have no mechanism to see to it that truth comes out in the letters section. I'm for seeing what people think, even if I find their ideas outrageous. In fact, I like being challenged by ideas that differ from mine.

But we lessen our discourse when the mud and manure slings back and forth. It would be better for our community, with our obviously varied opinions, if the newspaper would publish only those letters that hold up to a factual examination.

That way, a tone would be set for how we think and how (especially from which aperture) we talk to each other.

PAUL ROZYCKI, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

Reading the editorial page is like going to a sports game. I cheer for one side and respect the other. However, what I find myself enjoying most is yelling at bad calls from readers.

MICHAEL FOX, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

Too often personal opinion is treated like a flatulent outburst: Everybody knows you had one, but nobody wants to hear about it. Without trying to sound like a sycophant, I appreciate that someone on your editorial staff took time to spell out your editorial policy, which up until now has been baffled me. I also appreciate that you publish a wide range of opinions -- all the way from the thinkers to the stinkers.

BENJAMIN CHERRYHOMES, HASTINGS

• • •

In defending Strib editorial policy on selecting readers' letters for publication, Assistant Commentary Editor David Banks wrote "sometimes we don't know what we don't know."

Well, now, that's nice to know. The last time I heard that idea expressed it was by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was ridiculed by the press for such obvious foolishness. But he was right all along, wasn't he?

R.C.H. SCHMIDT, MINNETONKA