MIDLAND DAILY NEWS: WHEN DOES EDITING BECOME REWRITING?
Dearest readers,
Lady Budgetdown has spent quite a bit of time lately discussing misinformation, factual information, and the importance of knowing exactly what someone actually said.
Apparently, that standard belongs in the newspaper business, too.
A reader recently handed me an unusual set of receipts involving a letter she submitted to the Midland Daily News.
Not one version.
Not two.
Three.
Her original submission.
Her revised submission.
And the version Midland Daily News ultimately published under her name.
And there is a problem.
Midland Daily News tells readers that letters may be edited "for length, conciseness and clarity."
Fair enough.
Editors edit.
They shorten. They clean up. They make things fit.
But what happened here wasn't simply shortening a letter.
In Renita Bonadies' original submission, she wrote that approximately $1.5 million in accumulated MPS bond funds could potentially be used to lower the first-year millage rate on a future 2028 bond.
Then she revised her letter. And she REMOVED that assertion.
In its place, Renita submitted two questions:
"What is the real reason MPS is collecting these excess funds at this time? And what is the intended use of the growing funds on hand?"
That's not a minor wording change.
She went from suggesting what the money could potentially be used for to asking what the money would be used for.
Those are two very different things.
And yet, when Midland Daily News published her letter on August 26, the questions were gone. The earlier assertion she had removed? It was back.
The comparison provided to Lady Budgetdown specifically identifies that language as having come from the earlier submission and identifies the replacement questions as omitted from the published letter.
And that editorial decision had a consequence.
Trevor Dahl subsequently responded to the argument readers saw published under Renita's name.
I place no blame whatsoever on Mr. Dahl for that. Why would I? He responded to what Midland Daily News told its readers Renita had written.
But here's the receipt Midland Daily News readers didn't have:
Renita had already removed that argument.
Mr. Dahl was therefore responding to the stronger, earlier argument Midland Daily News published, not the more careful questions Renita had put in her revised submission.
And that is where Lady Budgetdown has a problem.
Editing for "length, conciseness and clarity" is one thing. Restoring a substantive assertion an author deliberately removed is another.
It doesn't merely shorten her words. It changes what she is asserting.
And when another community member subsequently responds to those published words, the distinction isn't academic anymore. The editorial choice has created a public debate around an assertion the writer had already chosen to withdraw.
So I have a few questions for the Midland Daily News:
Why was language restored from an earlier version after the writer removed it from her revision?
Why were the questions she substituted for that assertion omitted?
And perhaps most importantly:
Does Midland Daily News believe restoring a substantive assertion an author removed falls within editing a letter for "length, conciseness and clarity"?
Because Lady Budgetdown keeps hearing quite a bit about the importance of accurate information in Midland.
That principle shouldn't apply only to school districts, taxpayers and people writing letters to the editor.
It should also apply to the newspaper putting their names underneath them.
With receipts and respect. 🪶
#LadyBudgetdown #MidlandDailyNews #MidlandPublicSchools #MPS #Transparency #Accountability #WithReceiptsAndRespect