There are at least two reasons not to write a letter-to-the-editor about an article that may be inaccurate or unfair. Typically, I’ve found, the publication compounds the offense by heavily editing the letter and by providing space below it to give the article writer the last word.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
The clear purpose of the letter was to share with Miner–who I’ve known for years–my thoughts on where he got it wrong and to encourage him to interview sources who could set the record straight. I also made the letter available to a handful of people who asked me if Miner’s allegations were true, and to several of Miner’s colleagues, hoping they might prod him to do his job.
Miner also didn’t extend the customary journalistic courtesy of allowing me to respond to “new testimony” he claims to have developed. If he had, he might have avoided additional mistakes.
Another lesson is that journalists should be careful not to let intense personal biases cloud their vision. Yet Miner peppers his column with epithets such as “arrogance,” “infuriating,” “preposterous,” and–my personal favorite–“overweening certitude.” Then, in a revealing closing paragraph, he expresses “envy” for my “success.”
Northwestern University
