Of the opinion . . .

Recently a letter-writer dared this paper to refuse to print letters that claim as fact things that aren’t true.

Done. As it has been for a while now. Those who read the page see the policy box, down at the bottom of the page, that runs every day, and that one of the policies listed in the box is that statements of fact are checked for accuracy.

Soon after that letter was published, I received an email from another reader who wanted to know what documents I checked for a letter that included the phrase “God is sovereign.”

Hmmm. Ya stumped me. OK, no, you didn’t.

Opinion and fact aren’t black and white, though facts are generally considered to be things that can be proved. For instance, I am a woman with a goofy sense of humor. It’s a fact that I’m a woman with a sense of humor; whether that sense of humor is goofy is subjective, so that is opinion.

When it comes to letters, typically what you’ll read is clearly opinion, and most should be taken as straight opinion. If it’s not clear, we may edit slightly to make it clearer that it’s the writer’s opinion, but we try to keep that to a minimum, especially if it disrupts the tone or patois.

However, when those letters are about news events or public figures, facts come into play. If you say that President Barack Obama is an alien from Alpha Centauri, there would need to be tangible proof to state it as fact, or at the very least an attribution to the original source so everyone knows where you got your information. If you say he’s the ugliest man you’ve ever seen, that’s opinion as it’s subjective, based on your feelings about him.

Statements of faith fall in a slightly different area. Whether it’s from the Talmud, the Bible, the Koran or other religious text, those beliefs are truth to those adherents. If a specific reference is made, such as to a passage, origins or numbers of members, we do check those, but we do our best to respect religious beliefs and to treat them equally.

In my last dispatch, I mentioned the statement from the Romney campaign last year about not letting their actions be dictated by fact-checkers, and a few readers have taken me a bit to task for that. Some have made calm, reasoned arguments and accurately cited quotes and statistics. Others … not so much, using personal attacks and debunked “facts,” as well as diverging from what was actually said. If I wanted that, I’d go yell “I love Obama” at a gun show. I love a good debate, but have to insist on it remaining rooted in reality.

There are partisan fact-checkers on the Internet. However, if you visit a site that links fact checks to the original documents (perhaps the 906-pageofficial text of the Affordable Care Act as passed, or the original uncut video clip of a quote possibly taken out of context), the odds are greater that the site is more concerned about the facts than saving face for one party or another. And for research nerds like me, checking the original documentation absent outside interpretation often casts new light on the subject.

No one who’s truly concerned about the world should seek out only those things that reinforce their beliefs, but sadly, intellectual curiosity is lacking in many these days. This becomes apparent when a few “liberal” letters appear on a page; when some complain that we’re printing too many left-wing letters, two letters will miraculously grow to eight. Gosh, those liberals are like bunnies or something!

News and opinion aren’t supposed to mix, but they surely do now, unfortunately. The disappearance of the Fairness Doctrine has at least a little to do with that, along with even more loosening of broadcast standards. Add in a wildly growing Internet where just about anything goes, and you have … a big mess.

A reporter’s job is to report facts, not how the reporter feels about those facts-that’s the job of an opinion columnist. That’s why opinion and news are handled differently, and the writer’s opinion will only appear on our news pages if it is accompanied by an analysis or review label. Facts are not slanted to the left or right, but simply are (though Stephen Colbert’s “Reality has a well-known liberal bias” always cracks me up).

How those facts are presented, though, often makes the difference, because context matters. Remember the ads back in 1990 with Bill Clinton saying “raise and spend” repeatedly? Had the surrounding quote been part of the ad, it would have shown what he actually said to be the opposite of what his opponent tried to claim. And in the 2012 presidential campaign, both parties were guilty of taking quotes from opponents out of context in a ploy to persuade voters to their side. Selecting only a few facts and twisting them to fit an agenda makes them facts no longer.

As I’ve stated before in this space, as well as in conversations with readers, not all letters received are printed because we don’t have the space to do that, and not all letters are publishable. Those full of false claims stated as fact, offensive language or personal attacks won’t even be considered.

Civility is something sadly missing in a lot of places nowadays, and rude behavior has become the norm. But I think we can all have a healthy debate without resorting to name-calling or false attacks.

At the very least, we can try.

———◊———

Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page.