news-record.com

The candidacy of Sarah Palin has created a tsunami of passionate letters.

In fact, this is shaping up as an extraordinary year for letters. The tone, length and closeness of this year’s presidential race — as well as the cast of compelling figures — virtually assure it.

As of Thursday, we had received 3,114 letters this year and had published 1,545. We’re having to find extra space to fit them all in.

The wave of Palin letters in particular has been a challenge, because of the debate over what is factual and what is not concerning her background.

Because so relatively little had been known about Gov. Palin until recently, some of these “facts” tend to be moving targets. As more reporting emerges, more is known and some impressions of her record have changed.

Meanwhile, sooty campaigns on both sides of the aisle, and in national and state races, haven’t been helpful. In fact, even when some allegations have been proven as distortions, if not outright lies, they’ve continued to appear in sneering TV ads.

In one of the more ironic cases, a nonpartisan vetting Web site, FactCheck.org took a McCain ad to task for misrepresenting ... FactCheck.org.

In such a fluid — and testy — environment, we vet the letters as best we can. We don’t check every fact in every single letter. But we do look into anything that appears suspicious. We do so by checking credible Web sites such as FactCheck.org and snopes.com. We do our own research. We consult our in-house library. And we call the letter writers to ask where they obtained certain information.

Most of the time that’s enough. Sometimes it is not.

For instance, we published a correction a week ago on Palin’s actions regarding funding for special-needs students in the Alaska budget. A recent letter writer had contended that she cut that budget by 62 percent. The Washington Post, among other media, had reported that erroneously and I’m guessing the letter writer took his cue from them.

But one caller didn’t like our correction, which he considered spun to criticize Palin even as it set the record straight.

We wrote: “Some media outlets, including The Washington Post, incorrectly reported Gov. Sarah Palin’s actions regarding funding for special-needs children in the Alaska budget. That information was repeated in a letter published last week.

“Palin actually increased that funding, though she did so at a lower amount than requested.”

Obviously, all of this can get dicey. For instance, is it a fact that:

a. Palin supported the so-called Bridge to Nowhere?

b. Palin said no to the Bridge to Nowhere?

c. Or did both.

The answer is “c.” So letters arguing “a” or “b” could be considered accurate, though incomplete. She supported the bridge, then later opposed it.

And it would be more accurate to say that Congress stopped it.

At the same time, we’ve been criticized for tilting the letters against Palin. In other words, running more anti-Palin letters than pro-Palin letters.

But the letters we publish reflect the letters we get. I typically ask people who raise such complaints if they have written such a letter and have not seen it published. Or if they know someone else who has. They typically say no and I encourage them to write. If your letter meets our basic standards, we’ll publish it.

If anything, we prefer a healthy mixture of dueling opinions. It makes the letters section more robust and interesting.

This is not a new phenomenon. It came up during the old FedEx hub debate (remember that?) as well as the Chief Wray-Mitchell Johnson controversy and the Klan/Nazi shootings.

Then there are fabricated documents on the Internet that make scurrilous charges. One claims to be from an Alaska native and attacks Palin. It has appeared under different names all over cyberspace. Another purports to be from a soldier stationed in Afghanistan who upbraids Barack Obama for snubbing troops who wanted to meet him. The soldier does not exist.

If you do intend to send us a letter you can help expedite it being published by citing your sources, especially for statistics. One letter writer wrote to point out Obama’s mere 143 days in the U.S. Senate. Problem is, the number is just plain wrong. When I called the writer to ask about the figure, he said a friend had told him. Sheesh.

The bottom line: If you have something to say, wherever your loyalties lie, please write us. And please check your accuracy.

All opinions are welcome on the editorial pages. But let’s please, please agree to at least start with the same set of facts.