Moving forward: A change in policy

Apology revised

I wrote an apology in last week’s edition after Congressman Jeff Van Drew’s press conference March 15. I wrote it on deadline and it didn’t go far enough. I was focusing on what was in the newspaper, not that phone call. To fix that, I revised the editorial in our online edition under the Opinion tab on our website, ocnjsentinel.com. I know that some people won’t believe it makes things right because it is after the fact. I offer that anyway because it needs to be part of the record.

Related, I want to share part of a personal message I sent to someone late last week apologizing for my decision: 

I can’t justify allowing certain comments from a reader by making excuses like being too busy with too many tasks, having my senses dulled by all the bitter language flying about the political and cultural wars, or letting speech go unaltered under the banner of freedom of speech. 

As I told this person, my job as an editor was to edit to ensure no one would feel threatened or triggered. I didn’t do that. There is no good excuse.

Early criticism

In the 24 hours after that controversial guest column ran in the Sentinel March 10, I received two phones calls and an email denouncing the column and my decision to run it. 

All three were right.

I allowed something to run in the newspaper that shouldn’t have been there. At that time, I didn’t know an important part of the background – the contents of a phone call to Van Drew that he announced in the press conference March 15. That made things far worse, but doesn’t excuse running the column in the first place.

The readers were right. My judgment was wrong.

My long-held belief has been to keep our opinion pages open for local citizens to write in with their own opinions pretty much without limits as long as they sign their name to them.

That belief was tested by an extreme opinion. I could have edited out the extreme parts, demanded it be rewritten or refused to run it. By not doing any of those things, I failed our readers, the subject of the column and, yes, the person who wrote it. 

One caller asked why I keep allowing letters to the editor and guest columns that continue to litigate the 2020 election. It’s over, she said. It’s done. It is in the past. Move on.

She wasn’t just talking about that specific column, but other regular letters to the editor that continue to flow in since the November election. Those letters about politics are in other newspapers as well. I didn’t have an answer for that, but I hope that is addressed with our policy going forward.

We expect to run plenty of spirited – not caustic – letters to the editor and guest columns that address the issues of their choosing. 

To put it simply, however, readers won’t see anything like that guest column again.

We expect some of our readers will address political topics, political votes and politicians. We will accept them, but there is a new standard: no personal attacks. 

Disagree and lay out arguments for or against a position or a vote, but don’t dip into personal disparagement. The vast majority of letters and guest columns have never contained anything like that, but some have. This isn’t going to be a forum for that. 

Written record: Where I stand

Unlike what gets said on a radio talk show or television interview, my articles and opinions are printed. There is always an easily accessible record. These aren’t spoken words that flow off into the ether where they can be ignored or denied. I have to live with what I’ve written.

This latest episode in which I blew it and allowed that unedited column will remain on my record in my own newspaper. Readers now and in the future will see my mistake.

The other side of that equation is that readers can search through the thousands of articles, editorials and columns I have written in the past 23 years here at the Sentinel and can see for themselves what I have written.

They will see I have never disparaged women, excused or condoned unfair treatment of women, much less sexual assault or rape. Quite the opposite.

That is why this episode is so troubling to me.

I know what the writer was trying to say in his column about treatment of women, and it wasn’t condoning abuse or rape, as some critics have alleged. It was questioning why anyone would support someone who did. But the way he wrote it was wrong and I never should have allowed it. Just printing those words was wrong. I should have taken it out entirely or edited it to make the point correctly. The written record will show I failed in that.

The only thing I could do was apologize after the fact to the congressman publicly and to readers for allowing that in the newspaper.

David Nahan, Editor and Publisher Ocean City Sentinel