Revisiting an invitation

On November 9, we wrote an editorial titled “An Invitation to Talk,” inviting all stakeholders in the natural gas drilling activity to come to our table and talk about the issue. In some ways, we have been extremely pleased with the response. People who had previously not been willing to talk to us started to do so and, as a result, both their points of view and a number of facts that they have brought to our attention—some of which we might not otherwise have known—have become available to us and our readers.

But it hasn’t all been a bed of roses. To begin with, we have acquired a new coterie of critics—those who now accuse us of being in bed with the gas drillers—without having lost the chorus of voices who say we are biased against them.

More seriously, maintaining the civility of the discourse on the letters pages has become an increasing challenge. On the one hand, we feel that it is journalistically crucial that these pages provide a forum where readers can find out what their neighbors are genuinely thinking and feeling. On the other hand, with those genuine feelings running high, it is all too easy for the discussion to descend into a volley of personal name-calling that has very little bearing on the actual issues at hand. In this situation, we have been forced to clarify to ourselves the standards that determine when we return a letter to the writer for revision and when we do not.

There are two policies that we have maintained all along and will continue to maintain: we make sure that any allegations in letters be determined to be factually accurate; and, if there is any possibility of libel, we run the letter past our libel lawyers. But these by themselves, we find, are not sufficient to maintain the tone we would like to keep on the editorial page.

One principle that has come to the fore in our consideration is that of excluding from the editorial pages ad hominem attacks. The Latin phrase “ad hominem” mean literally “to the man” and, accordingly, the dictionary defines the phrase as “marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to his contentions.” As much as possible, our intention henceforth is to reserve these pages for discussions of the actual merits or demerits of natural gas drilling, and not on the morals or character of the individuals who hold certain views on it. If you disagree with something somebody says, tell us why, providing us with as many hard facts as possible. But to throw insults at the writer will not help any of us.

Unfortunately, however, the line between ad hominem attacks and information of a type that, as they would say in a courthouse, goes to motive, is not always completely clear. To merely say that somebody is a scoundrel or a fool is never useful; but to point out that they have a conflict of interest that may introduce a bias to what they have to say is relevant in evaluating their position.

This principle applies on all sides of any issue. If someone stands to profit tremendously from, let’s say, natural gas drilling, there is a possibility that they will tend to discount fears about environmental harm more than someone considering the matter from a non-involved standpoint. Similarly, if someone owns a property too small to lease right next to a likely well site on someone else’s land, they may not give sufficient weight to arguments that natural gas drilling will help the overall economy. Knowing about the context from which someone speaks, in other words, is helpful in adjusting for any bias that they might have. And biases of this sort are shared by all of us, because we are all stakeholders in different ways and different degrees in many different aspects of our surroundings.

So when someone in the community has written us a letter or otherwise publicly taken a stand on the issue of gas drilling, we would consider it legitimate for someone else to point out that the speaker has certain circumstances that may tend to bias them one way or another. To take the further step and say that they only hold the positions they espouse because they are selfish, or greedy, or stupid, on the other hand, crosses the line that we are attempting to maintain.

The advent of natural gas drilling will facilitate tremendous changes in our area, for good or ill. We cannot afford to let ourselves get bogged down in mudslinging fights if we are to meet the challenges it presents in a way that preserves the optimum quality of life for all. We understand and, sometimes, share the feelings of personal upset that our readers may feel when they read the words of someone who may not recognize the benefits of something they consider vital, or the dangers of something they consider deadly. But it is important that we step back from those feelings and focus as best we can on the facts and reason that we believe supports a more inclusive view of the issue. If these editorial pages can become a home for such dialogue, it will provide a very real service to the entire community.

Obviously, we can’t do it alone and, again, we invite you to a continuing conversation.

Also in this issue:

• A thank-you note from DISH, TX

Dr. Punnybone

Head Case