By Jessica Kennedy

The Los Angeles Times drew some controversy October 5, when an editor, Paul Thornton, explained a policy on publishing criteria for the Letters to the Editor section. Thornton responded to a letters comment on Obamacare and explained the process their publication uses to decide which letters are published over others. His statement was simple. He said the paper would not publish material in letters to the editor that are “… based on falsehood.” Thornton’s original comment was as follows:

Regular readers of The Times’ Opinion pages will know that, among the few letters published over the last week that have blamed the Democrats for the government shutdown (a preponderance faulted House Republicans), none made the argument about Congress exempting itself from Obamacare.

Why? Simply put, this objection to the president’s healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there’s no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.

While Thornton’s reference to climate change was only meant as an example, it drew several criticisms from climate change deniers. He published a lengthy response, and it seems to boil down to the facts:

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.

Thornton’s critics seem to think this is a type of censorship — but I disagree. While a letters section of a publication should allow readers to give their feedback on what is published, it should not be a place to state false claims as fact. The reason the letters section has an editor is to discretionally omit letters that are vulgar, provide false information or are otherwise inappropriate.

Thornton is doing his job by making sure false claims do not slip through the cracks and into a reputable paper such as the L.A. Times. Because so many people get information through different channels like social media, television, news publications and blogs, it is often up to readers to determine what is true and what is false. The internet, while a fantastic tool for sharing information and discussion, is also a repository for factual inaccuracies.

Granted, there are times these falsehoods are simply satire and are meant to be taken with a grain of salt, like the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus, or The Onion.

But, today anyone can start their own blog and post whatever they choose. These can be informational, creative, or contain false content. It is always crucial to fact-check online sources, as any schoolteacher will explain to students.

What’s wrong with checking for falsehood and keeping it off of a news website? People need to think for themselves and censorship stands in the way of this. But, a newspaper’s decision not to publish information its editors deem unreliable or false is not censorship — It is editing. It is a simple example of a journalist explaining that letters will be vetted carefully and false information will not be posted as fact. Ultimately, the paper itself is responsible if it does print false information. Those who deny peer-reviewed evidence of climate change are not restricted from opinion. Just as every American is free to his or her own beliefs, the press has the right to only publish material it deems appropriate.

Jessica can be found on Twitter and Google+.