The Arizona Republic (on April 30) published a letter without notice to the submitter that it was making a substantive change to the letter. Here is the text of what we wrote to the two principals in charge of the Letters to the Editor page:
"The attached letter (Letter as Published) appeared in the local Central Phoenix Republic of today’s (April 30) paper. The letter as submitted is also attached (Genesis 4-9), the last sentence of which (in red) was omitted from the letter as published. It would seem fair to say that the omission of that last sentence altered significantly the intendment of the letter. Specifically, the point of the letter as submitted (as noted in the subject line as well) was to highlight the stark contradiction between the supposed espoused biblical values of religious institutions (to be one’s brother’s keeper as noted in Genesis 4-90, i.e., to protect others) and the position they’ve taken in seeking exemptions from mitigation efforts during a pandemic or other medical emergencies. While the Republic certainly has the right to publish or not publish any submitted letter, when, as here, it believes a change in the text of the submitted letter is warranted, it would seem appropriate to request the approval of the letter writer before published the revised version. Just as an fyi, the New York Times extends just such a courtesy when it wishes to make changes to a submitted letter, and will not publish its proposed revised version without the approval of the letter writer.
"I truly enjoy the Letters to the Editor page of the Republic, and appreciate all the hard work you must put in to make it as good as it is. In that spirit, I trust you will consider the above suggestion as an effort to avoid the circumstance where a letter as published does not reflect what the letter writer wished to say and why the letter writer submitted the letter in the first place.
"PS: In making the above suggestion, I do recognize the difference between changing the text of the letter (as was done with my above letter published on April 30) and changing the subject line (as was done with my letter published on April 27 proposing a simple way for airlines to make flying safer (copy attached as published and as submitted)). Thus, my suggestion is limited to substantive textual changes."
------------------------------
Letter as Submitted with sentence in red omitted when published on April 30: "At the very end of the excellent (April 26) lead article on ending virus protection bans, it becomes clear that religious institutions have successfully lobbied to have their services deemed “essential services” during states of emergency and hence exempt from any pandemic mitigation measures such as mask mandates. To put it bluntly, this exemption will enable houses of worship to hold super-spreader events, so that the attendees will be enabled (and entitled) to infect (which can lead to the death of) other attendees, including the immune-compromised and otherwise vulnerable, all in the name of “medical freedom.” One can only wonder how it has come to be that the drive for so-called “medical freedom” has been elevated to the point that spreading disease and inflicting harm on others has superseded and overridden what houses of worship used to call their mission, as aptly captured in Genesis 4-9, to promote the well-being of others."
[EOP]