Editor's note: Helen Westover sent the information allegedly documenting bias on the letters page to Ms. Downey. This is her response. Helen's response and my response to Ms. Downey follow.
Helen:
Thanks for the list on frequent publications. We're working to correct that. Dealing with scores of letters a month, it can be a challenge. A couple of other points:
Thanks for your concern.
Meg
Editor's note: Helen Westover responds to Ms. Downey:
But, Meg, John does NOT treat me, or others who I know have dealt with him, with courtesy. That's half the problem. We have dealt with J.D. Audlin, and have had disagreements, but he is always professional. Penney is not, and has NOT been for a long time - i.e,. our “conversation” over my letter - the one I was told by the news dept. to write - which was not printed.
BTY, if what you admit is true, why didn't Penney SAY that to Bill K.?
He is a liability.
Thanks for responding.
Helen
Editor's note: I get the last word.
Dear Ms. Downey
Having had a central role in the “discussion” between Ms. Helen Westover and yourself, I would like to comment on the exchange, which Helen forwarded to me.
First, I want to make it clear that John Penney has always been courteous to me. Perhaps he just has a problem with “pushy” women.
Regarding your explanation for the discrepencies I uncovered, it seems to me that printing my letter would have presented an excellent opportunity for Mr. Penney to clarify things on the letters page. But not only did he not print my letter and offer a clarification, he didn't offer a clarification to me for publication on my site. Had he done so, I would have gladly posted it, as I am going to post your explanation to Helen.
The only explanation John offered to me was that he was using some antiquated system to “count” words, and that the word “counts” didn't necessarily correspond to word counts done by word processors, etc. To that I would respond that whatever the criterion is, that should be stated in the letter policy. For instance, if the limit is based on column inches, that is what the policy should say, perhaps giving an approximate corresponding word count. Before I brought my information to Mr. Penney's attention, the policy stated that no letters longer than 250 words would be considered. I don't care what kind of system he's using, a word is a word, not two words or a half a word. If there are 251 or more of them in a letter, the policy stated it wouldn't be published, but as you can see, that was not the case.
One other thing John told me was that his “word count” included the name and address. You need to know that the word counts that I posted did not include the name and address, so based on the stated “policy” limit, my word counts are conservative. So when my list shows 251 words, the actual count, against which the “policy” was applied, was actually higher. A true compilation of “violations” would have been considerably longer.
After Mr. Penney rejected my letter, he did make a change to the letter “policy,” but the new policy seems to make it more arbitrary - “Letters should be no more than 250 words.” From this I infer that he'll print longer letters at his discretion. A fixed limit, applied evenly, would avoid conflict, but the new policy gets further away from that standard.
I agree with you that shorter letters are normally better, but when the de facto required interval between letters is a month and a half to two months (more on that later), it's hard to get everything you want to say in a short letter. I suggested to Mr. Penney that a shorter interval be applied to short (e.g., < 50 words) letters, but he wasn't receptive to the idea. Given how difficult he finds it to keep track, perhaps I can understand his reluctance. What I don't understand, though, is why he finds keeping track of letter writers so difficult. In this age of computers, such a task is a snap. For instance, you expressed astonishment that someone would take the “time” to count words. I am astonished that you would think someone actually sits down and counts words. My computer does it, and it takes microseconds, and none of it my time.
Then there's the matter of letter intervals. As with the word count “policy,” my objection is the arbitrariness in how it's applied. Aside from the obvious violations, such as those I documented, there is also an unfairness in its application. As with the word count limit, the interval limit was also changed as a result of my letter. But, the change didn't make it any fairer. Previously, the policy stated, “Because of the volume of letters, writers will be limited to having one letter published every 30 days.” In practice, what it meant was that when I sent in a letter, it might sit for several weeks until it was published. Then, when I'd send in another 30 days after I sent in the last one, I'd be told they couldn't print it because 30 days had not elapsed since it was PUBLISHED. When I did my interval check, it became obvious to me that this policy was being applied unevenly. In addition to the obvious 30 day violations, I also found quite a few where the interval was exactly 30 days or just a few days more. I didn't include those, but it was obvious to me that had the policy been applied to them as it was applied to me, they couldn't have gotten two letters printed in such a short time. Since they couldn't send their second letter in before 30 days after the previous one was published, and none of my letters were ever printed the day after it was received, this could not have happened if the policy was applied evenly.
Does the new policy correct this? I'll reserve judgment until I see how it is applied. Now, it says, “Because of the volume of letters, writers should submit no more than one letter every 30 days.” This would seem to imply that I could submit my next letter Jan. 22, which would be 30 after I submitted my last one, and it COULD get in the paper earlier than Feb. 5, which would be 30 days after it was PUBLISHED. I'll wait and see.
Now here's the critical question. The letter I submitted was so compelling that it resulted in changes to the letters policy. If it was that compelling, why was it rejected from publication. If my letter was not based on substance, there would have been no reason to change the policy. The policy changes are proof that my letter had substance and therefore, should have been printed.
Sincerely,
Bill Kriebel - Hopewell Junction
Editor's note: I sent a separate note to Ms. Downey addressing her response to my complaints about the use of the word “alleged” in the headline over another letter that they did print.
Dear Ms. Downey,
In your response to Helen Westover, you said this:
“The headline writer used ‘alleged’ in regard to Limbaugh's abuses mentioned in your opening paragraph, not the ACLU's. Headlines over letters are meant to reflect the writer's opinion; they are not news headlines. There is a different approach because they are on the Opinion page. And so you know, John Penney has nothing to do with the headlines. They are written by different copy editors.”
With all due respect, this doesn't make sense, and doesn't address my, or Helen's, concern. In my opening paragraph, I made no mention of “abuses” by Rush Limbaugh. I was clearly referring to “abuses” OF Mr. Limbaugh. I didn't use the word “alleged” in regards to those abuses, and considering all the allegations made by letter writers that have little, if any, basis in fact, the fact that the word “alleged” would be added to my letter but to NONE of those shows a clear bias, in my opinion.
I have not directed my “bias” criticism at any single individual. I did not suggest that John Penney was the biased individual who wrote the headline. I brought it to John's attention because it appeared on what I assume is his page. If my assumption was incorrect, I'd expect John to forward it to the responsible individual. If the fault lies with a “headline writer,” perhaps that person should be instructed in ways to keep his or her personal biases out of his or her work.
Sincerely,
Bill Kriebel - Hopewell Junction