A man of letters
Letters to the Editor remain one of our most popular features, on the traditional printed page and in blog form. But not everyone is pleased with them.
This email came from a reader this week:
"I think the concept of letters to the editor is greatly diminished by the option of writing feedback to a letter. Letters to the editor should be reserved for well-written 200-word letters SIGNED by the person who submitted them.
"The brainless ranting that follows allows an unlimited forum to people who otherwise would not be willing to sign their real name. If someone wants to respond to a letter, let them craft 200 words in cogent sentences and sign their own name! This shouldn't look like a teenager's Web site!"
We hope it doesn't. Some of the conversations can go overboard in the letters blog, but many are thoughtful and well-written. But that's one man's opinion. What do others think?
Meanwhile, another reader wondered whether the paper should be more selective in the letters we (actually, it's usually me) choose for publication. She said she had grown especially weary of so many faith-oriented letters, particularly those that quote Leviticus, over and over.
Amen to that.
In general, however, we take a populist view to our letters; so far as space permits, we try to offer a representative sample of what people are thinking. Sometimes that may mean letters that aren't as eloquent as others but that still offer clear arguments and interesting ideas.
As for our use of more faith-oriented letters, they merely reflect where are in history. Like it or not, religion has become a focal part of public policy.
Now, I won't run letters that quote one biblical verse after another, but others that debate religious issues often make the cut.
As for the letters blog concern, we still hope and believe that the plusses outweigh the minuses of the concept by making the letters columns more alive and fluid -- that the opportunity to hold ongoing discussions about a letter's arguments extends the reach and the shelf life of the letter.
But I could be wrong. This is a brave new world for us. We'll have to see how these new initiatives play out over time and we appreciate your feedback.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Since high school, the letters to the editor portion of the newspaper (and the editorial pages in general) has been my favorite section. (I started with comics and sports, as I imagine is true of many people.)
I enjoy writing letters to the editor when I am able to find the time, but I get just as much pleasure reading what others have to express. Sometimes more.
When I have had letters to the editor printed, I always have been curious about people's reactions to what I've written.
Compared to the number of letters I've had printed, very few have elicited printed responses.
Among the few printed responses my letters have drawn, some have offered strong criticism of what I had written. From one response, I learned that I was regarded as "new-age proponent," a term with which I was then unfamiliar and which I learned was not intended as flattery. I have received equally strong criticism to a couple of other letters. With most letters, though, I've been left in the dark about what people's reactions have been.
I do believe that if you are willing to have your thoughts and ideas published for general consumption, you should expect or at least be open to the possibility of criticism. If you are unprepared for that, maybe you should not submit your writing for publication.
While there are some mean-spirited individuals in Blog-Land, there are, as you point out, many thoughtful, interesting, and provocative points shared. To make available exposure to the "good stuff," we may just have to tolerate some of the "bad stuff" too.
There may be a time and a place to express yourself anonymously, but I am definitely more impressed by individuals who share their full names, even in the Blogosphere.
At the same time, I would prefer to know what someone's responses and ideas are (even if expressed anonymously) than to be kept in the dark that such thoughts exist.
And those who write letters to the editor have as equal an opportunity to join discussions of their own letters through the Blog as anyone else.
The "letters to the editor" Blog actually keeps printed letters alive beyond their appearance in print (as you pointed out, Mr. Johnson). I love the idea of being able to read the discussion generated.
And when someone expresses themselves in an ugly manner, I just dismiss that person as irrelevant, foolish, and misguided. Such individuals should not and need not be taken seriously. And if what they express is offensive or out-of-line, I know that intelligent, thoughtful people out there will call them out on that.
As you point out, this is an experiment. Time will tell where it goes and what adjustments might have to be made.
As with anything, it only takes one or a few to ruin something good.
Hopefully the News & Record will ultimately figure out a way to avoid giving negative individuals the power to limit or destroy the great potential of its Blogs (which, so far, overall, I think has already seen some of its positive potential reached).
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and other News & Record Bloggers for your willingness to go forward with this experiment. It is a welcome addition to what you already had to offer.
May the experiment continue!
Posted on March 7, 2005 10:57 PM
Comments should remain.
To the person who was complaining about comments to the letters. There is absolutely nothing forcing him or her to read those comments.
Posted on March 8, 2005 9:22 AM
I agree with the other two posters; I like the new format. I also believe it more closely reflects the current trend of the internet. Anyone who doesn't like the new format can skip the responses or stick with the printed format. It does allow for a more timely debate on current issues, which I believe outweighs the problems of poor and ill thought out posts.
Good job, in my humble opinion.
Posted on March 9, 2005 5:50 PM