LNP | LancasterOnline Opinion editors have double standard on editing

Originally Published in LNP|LancasterOnline on Sunday, August 18, 2025, as: "US Rep. Smucker: LNP | LancasterOnline Opinion editors have double standard on editing [column]"

After LNP | LancasterOnline Opinion Editor Suzanne Cassidy refused to publish my recent submitted column unless I accepted what I viewed as unnecessary edits, she declared in an Aug. 3 column that “LNP | LancasterOnline Opinion sought to edit, not silence” me.

But her “take it or leave it” ultimatum meant I could either accept edits that diluted my argument — or say nothing at all in the July 20 Perspective section.

I stand by my original words. I will not agree to publish a version shaped by edits that I believe clearly go beyond fact-checking and into ideological filtering. That’s not editing for clarity. That’s editorial control over what opinions are acceptable.

For example, Cassidy told me I was not allowed to describe the financial hardship families grappled with due to former President Joe Biden’s policies that spurred skyrocketing inflation as “devastating” unless I replace the word with “challenging” or perhaps qualified it by stating “I believe.” I will never forget the stories of families across Pennsylvania’s 11th Congressional District who shared with me the hardship they experienced dealing with the rampant inflation. Friends and neighbors in our community were devastated, and there is no denying it.

I respect editorial standards, but I do not need Cassidy to choose which words I can use to express myself.

In her Aug. 3 column, Cassidy wrote: “Columns are absolutely opinion, but it’s my job, and that of Deputy Opinion Editor Chris Otto, to ensure that they are grounded in verifiable facts and that they use precise language.” But what she won’t say is how selectively those standards are applied.

Cassidy challenged my staff to provide examples of this double standard. You do not have to look hard to find recent columns by Democratic officials and critics of the Trump administration that were published in the LNP | LancasterOnline Opinion section and do not include the type of edits Cassidy tried to force on my column.

In columns edited by either Cassidy or Otto, other writers were permitted to make outrageous claims without the qualifiers Cassidy demanded from me.

Some examples

— In the June 22 column “The 2025 federal budget is an attack on America” state Rep. Nikki Rivera, a Democrat representing the 96th Legislative District, exclaimed: “These cuts violate our state constitution’s Environmental Rights Amendment, which guarantees our right to ‘clean air, pure water and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment.’ ”

Why was Rivera not forced to say “I believe” to qualify that statement? Rivera is neither a judge nor a constitutional expert. Her statement is an opinion, not a fact — but Rivera’s assertion seemingly received no scrutiny.

Cassidy later explained in an email to my staff that Rivera’s piece was published when she was on vacation, and that she did not edit it.

But this excuse doesn’t account for the broader pattern: Columns seemingly aligned with the Opinion editors’ views face less scrutiny.

— In the July 13 LNP | LancasterOnline column “How Lancaster County families can prepare for challenges caused by the ‘One Big Beautiful’ law,” Aimee Ketchum, a pediatric occupational therapist at UPMC Hospital, wrote: “While the One Big Beautiful Bill Act modestly expanded the child tax credit and increased the tax credit for companies that help employees obtain child care, neither of these changes will help low-income families.”

Did Ketchum demonstrably prove that “neither of these changes will help low-income families”? What was her citation? Ketchum cannot know how this legislation will affect every family. Her statement is false.

— Democratic state Sen. James Malone wrote a critical July 9 column headlined “The GOP’s ‘big, beautiful’ bill is bad for Lancaster County.”

Malone wrote “This is a life-or-death issue.” He did not have to write “I believe” to qualify this statement.

According to Cassidy in her Aug. 3 column, “Hyperbole — laying it on too thick — weakens an argument.” But that seemingly only applies if an Opinion editor disagrees with what you are trying to say.

— In her June 15 column, “Proposed federal budget cuts would be devastating to Lancaster County,” Lancaster County Democratic Commissioner Alice Yoder criticized the Trump administration, stating: “Federal budget funding cuts would affect our youngest and oldest county residents, decreasing staff in areas such as early intervention programs and senior career counseling, causing wait lists and service delays.”

How could Yoder confidently predict this?

In her Aug. 3 column, Cassidy wrote, “as far as I know, Smucker cannot predict the future.”

Can Yoder?

— A final instance comes from a June 8 LNP | LancasterOnline column by Richard D. Clark, the vice president of the North Museum of Nature and Science Board of Directors and a professor emeritus of meteorology at Millersville University (“Draconian cuts to scientific research in the United States could be catastrophic”).

In criticizing what was then the proposed budget from the Trump administration, Clark states: “If enacted, this would strip the federal government of its ability to confront pandemics, mitigate climate risks and compete in the global technology race.”

Did Clark’s citations accompanying his piece prove fully that America could no longer “confront pandemics, mitigate climate risks and compete in the global technology race” if Congress adopted the president’s budget proposal?

There was no qualification of Clark’s belief about what the impact would be. Again, this statement is hyperbolic and, frankly, melodramatic.

Ensuring a fair game

I am glad these contributors had a chance to share their opinions in LNP | LancasterOnline. But the contrast in Opinion department editing standards is unmistakable to me — and concerning.

A truly free press treats all viewpoints fairly, just like how an umpire ensures a fair game. Cassidy portrays herself as an “equal-opportunity pain in the neck” and portrays herself as a proverbial umpire. But, in reality, she decides who gets to play and what rules they must follow.

This Opinion department gatekeeping has discouraged contributions from many local Republican officials who reasonably doubt they will be treated impartially. As a result, each Wednesday and Sunday, the Opinion pages are often an echo chamber of a narrow ideological spectrum from the same handful of voices. This is antithetical to the role of a free press in our society, and public discourse suffers as a result.

It did not have to be this way. But this is the result of the LNP | LancasterOnline Opinion department’s double standard and the newspaper in general being out of touch with the community it serves.

I will continue to speak directly to the people of the 11th Congressional District — through social media, newsletters, telephone town halls and face-to-face conversations. I invite you to continue sharing your views with me.

Free expression is not something that is negotiated. It is a principle that has allowed our nation to flourish. The people of the 11th Congressional District deserve local media that reflect their community and values, not one filtered through the ideological preferences of its Opinion editors.

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker serves Pennsylvania’s 11th Congressional District, which includes Lancaster County and southern York County. He serves as vice chair of the House Budget Committee and is a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.