Syndicates: What Crosses the Line in a Column?

By: Dave Astor One columnist (Ann Coulter) has "joked" about liberals meeting a violent end. Another pundit (Robert Novak) outed a CIA agent. All of which begs the question: What content is ? and isn't ? permissible in a syndicated column? E&P asked executives at major syndicates for their opinions.

1. Would you distribute a column containing a joking/satirical reference to killing a person or people?

"It depends on the context, and what feature it is," answered Lee Salem, president and editor of Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Coulter.

Creators Syndicate Vice President/Editorial Director Kathy Kei and United Media Senior VP/General Manager Lisa Klem Wilson agreed that context is crucial. "We would clearly give more leeway to something that's not serious," Kei said.

Copley News Service Vice President and Editor Glenda Winders said her syndicate wouldn't distribute a column that joked about killing people. Would the Washington Post Writers Group?

"Of course not," replied Alan Shearer, WPWG's editorial director and general manager. "That's a cheap device designed only to stir people up."

2. Would you distribute a column that outed a CIA operative?

"No," said Copley's Winders.

Kei of Creators, which syndicated Novak's 2003 column outing Valerie Plame, said: "We would never knowingly distribute a column that broke any law." She added, "We believe Robert Novak has thoroughly and eloquently explained his decision to report on Valerie Plame, and, of course, he broke no law."

The WPWG's Shearer said: "I can't think of a reason to out an undercover operative."

Universal's Salem asked: "Isn't that against the law? We're not a news wire or news agency, but a feature syndicate."

Wilson doesn't think United would allow the outing of a CIA agent. But she added that any such major editing decision would be discussed and debated by various people at the syndicate.

3. Would you distribute a column that revealed a U.S. military secret?

"That's not a goal here," deadpanned Wilson, while also offering an answer similar to her reply to the second question.

Salem and Winders said they wouldn't syndicate a column that revealed a U.S. military secret.

"We would never do so knowingly, provided it was a legitimate military secret," added Kei.

"A good journalist always is sensitive to military or intelligence secrets," said Shearer. "Time and again, reputable journalistic institutions withhold information." He added, "It would be rare for a columnist to reveal a military secret."

4. Would you distribute a column containing a slur like the "N" word?

"No," said Winders of Copley.

"My first reaction is no," added Wilson, "but I'd have to see the context." She said United would never allow a slur to be used "in a reckless way," but that it might be allowed in a quote.

"AP style is clear," noted Shearer. "Racially derogatory terms are not used unless they're part of a quotation that's essential to the story. We're especially sensitive to the 'N' word and will not use it except when it's in a book or song title." Even then, he added, WPWG will alert editors and try to conform to AP style by writing the letter "N" followed by dashes.

"It depends on the context. We've rarely done so, and only with a note to editors flagging the column," said Salem.

"When editing, we try to determine whether or not the potentially offensive language is necessary to prove a point," said Kei. "If it is, we alert newspaper editors to the language and let them decide what's appropriate for their publication. For instance, the use of the 'N' word in a column quoting lyrics from rap music would be permissible."

5. Would you distribute a column containing a curse word?

Kei, Salem, and Wilson gave answers similar to the ones they provided for the slur question. "It depends on the context," added Winders.

"Again, AP style is clear," said Shearer. "It would have to be part of a quote essential to a story, and the column would carry an 'attentioner.' As for our writers using a curse word in the text? I can't think of a reason for it. They're better than that."

6What other things might not be permissible in a column?

Wilson said United would not syndicate a column with sexually explicit content or a column giving out the personal phone number of a private citizen.

"Factual errors, logical fallacies, or disjointed arguments would definitely kill a column," said Winders. "Also, we don't distribute rants. And I think it goes without saying that we'd never knowingly distribute a column the writer had plagiarized."

Shearer said WPWG has returned columns to writers "because the work wasn't ready; it needed more reporting or revision for clarity."

He added: "Any piece of writing that merely inflames serves no purpose other than to preach to a constituency that wishes to be enraged. Name-calling, spewing of hatreds, and put-downs of individuals and groups have no place in our business."

Salem said Universal wouldn't want a column with "uneditable incoherence" or one that "strayed too far from the established 'persona' of the author or the definition of the feature given in our contract."

Syndicate executives also had other comments. Salem said Universal often relies on local editors to determine what's appropriate in a column. "There's a danger in prejudging the editorial criteria of a diverse list of newspapers from Maine to California, so if we err, it's on the side of granting a writer wide latitude," he said. "What a relatively few newspapers might choose to not run, many more might elect to run."

Wilson said United also leaves a number of editing decisions up to client papers ? while flagging potentially controversial content with an editor's note. "The standards do vary from paper to paper," she observed.

She added that some United columnists are based at a newspaper, so they're edited before their work is sent to the syndicate.

Two syndicate executives declined to answer the six questions directly, but e-mailed general statements on what's permissible in columns.

"An editor has to look at the reason, logic, and motivation in any argument as the criteria by which an opinion is judged sound or not," responded Glenn Mott, managing editor of King Features Syndicate.

He added: "As far as applying these opinions to the standards of the times in which they're expressed, reason alone isn't enough. There are always just causes and issues that give offense to the public ? suffrage or the civil-rights movement are but two examples ? and that's where an editor must rely on experience to spot the cant associations in any argument." (Among the definitions of "cant" is "insincere speech.")

John Twohey, vice president for editorial and operations at Tribune Media Services, wrote E&P: "To me, context is everything. You can't make a sensible judgment about the subject of a column without reviewing the entire piece. Is the writer being ironic? Overstating a position for effect? Something that's over the line in one context may be perfectly acceptable in another."

Twohey noted, for instance, that "a satirist like Garrison Keillor may say something in a humorous vein that would seem utterly out of bounds if it were dropped into a commentary by another writer."