BE OUR GUEST: SPEAKING OUT TO THE SOUTHEAST MISSOURIAN ABOUT SPEAK OUT

As I was growing up, my parents taught me that if I felt strongly about an issue I should have the determination to stand up and speak my mind. I also learned that I needed to be willing to have my name associated with my opinions; they called it the courage of conviction, and said that everything from a letter to the editor to the Declaration of Independence was given meaning by names at the bottom. Well, here's my letter.

To the Editor:

I have a problem with the Speak Out column in the Southeast Missourian. In their current form, the comments in Speak Out differ little from anonymous calls in the middle of the night. The caller is not accountable for his actions; he can say anything he wants, accurate or not, hurtful or not, appropriate or not, cloaked in the shadows of his anonymity. Speak Out is verbal graffiti. Is it good journalism? Is it responsible journalism? Is it even ethically acceptable journalism?

It can be argued that Speak Out provides a forum for anyone uncomfortable with writing a letter. Calling on the phone is after all, a lot easier than writing. The concept of providing a service for recording the comments of people too busy or unsure of their writing skills to compose a letter is a great idea but anyone who feels strongly enough about an issue for his opinions to appear in print should be willing to have his name associated with those opinions. Your callers should have the courage of their convictions.

A case can be made that some people won't call in because they'll be intimidated by the prospect of leaving their names. True. But what kind of calls would you be losing? Half truths? Innuendo? Inflammatory, anonymous remarks? Hearsay? Rumor? All of these. Although calls like these represent only a small percentage of Speak Out excerpts, they are disturbing nonetheless. I don't think you'd lose that majority of excellent, appropriate comments that make Speak Out a vital part of your paper. These would continue. What about news tips or questions regarding specific problems with city government, its departments, other public agencies or businesses? These you generally don't print anyway; all newspapers receive tips they follow through on with appropriate investigative reporting. This would continue as well. The bottom line is that by asking callers to add their names, you risk losing nothing really worth printing anyway.

I have known and admired Gary Rust, the founder of this newspaper in its present form, since I was a child. He has always been a great champion and proponent of the American System and the American Way of Life. This is why the presence of "gray area" ~journalism like Speak Out in this paper has always puzzled me so much. Perhaps I can illuminate my strong feelings about Speak Out by referring to the blueprint for our way of life, the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees free speech and freedom of the press, but nowhere provides for or protects the right of anonymous free speech. In fact, a glimpse into the sentiments of the authors of our Constitution regarding this issue exists in the Sixth Amendment. It states that in cases of criminal prosecution, "the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him". Why did the framers of the Constitution make this guarantee? It's simple; they wanted to eliminate rumor and hearsay in cases where facts are essential. They wanted to deal only with truth and provable facts, with accurate information, to be assured that a person making an accusation was responsible and accountable for what he said. Keep in mind that these men grew up under other legal/judicial systems. They had seen the harm that could come from comments made anonymously or repeated without verification. They responded with a better system of government. Truth and accountability are principles that should be just as important to the news media in this country.

Right now Speak Out thrives in part upon rumor, hearsay and unsubstantiated fact. I am certain that if Thomas Jefferson ran a newspaper, Speak Out in the format we are familiar with wouldn't be a part of it. "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men shall have the right to secretly slander..." No way!

What would Mr. Jefferson say about anonymous call-ins to radio talk shows? I don't think he'd like the idea. Would he cite the presence of such programs on radio as a justification of something like Speak Out in a newspaper? Absolutely not. I'm certain he would point out that these shows constitute a form of entertainment rather than the dissemination of news. Mr. Rust has categorically stated that the mission of Speak Out is not entertainment. It serves a higher purpose, and needs to conform to higher standards. The comments need names.

Another concern I have is that Speak Out could easily be more informative with regard to the issues it raises. Currently it offers opinion without explanation; comment without rebuttal; spark, if you will, without illumination. By printing only callers' comments without verification or editorial explanation, your newspaper runs the risk of misinforming its readership. And the business of a newspaper is information. The more accurate, truthful and balanced the information, the better the paper.

Speak Out could be more informative, more responsible and more accurate in reflecting the sentiments and issues that drive our community and region. The changes to do this would be easy.

I suggest a 30-day trial period with two simple changes:

1. Have your answering machine request that callers leave their names and phone numbers. When your editor decides to run a comment, return the call and confirm that the individual in fact made the statement and is willing to have it and his name printed. Do not print comments left without a name. This will eliminate anonymous, irresponsible calls. Good-bye, verbal graffiti.

2. Although this would not be practical with nationally-known figures, any time a local official or business is mentioned in Speak Out, make them aware of what is going to be printed (they deserve this courtesy anyway) and allow them to respond in the same issue. This way the caller's comment and a response can be read simultaneously. This will provide more information to your readers. An example of the value of this can be taken from a recent Speak Out. I read that two people were upset by a recent interview in which school board member Ed Thompson displayed what they felt was "insensitivity" to low income families. In reading the Speak Out comments I felt certain that the callers had misunderstood Mr. Thompson's interview. Had they understood his intent, they would have realized that his position paralleled theirs. If Mr. Thompson could have responded in the same issue, I feel certain he could have eliminated the confusion and misunderstanding. However, a surprising number of your readers read only Speak Out and would have been misinformed by reading only the phoned-in comments. Giving someone like Mr. Thompson the opportunity to clarify his thoughts in the same column and in the same issue would provide a more fully-informed readership. This is in fact what you want your newspaper to do: to fully and accurately inform the public.

Try these two changes for 30 days and see how they work. It can't hurt. I honestly believe that the character of Speak Out will change. I'm certain it will change for the better.

David Crowe

Cape Girardeau