Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 10, 1991 TAG: 9102110258
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Bob Willis/ Associate Editor
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
In those days, the paper could print nearly every letter to the editor it received. Only those that were libelous, obscene, in bad taste or unsigned were ruled out. Some days the right side of the Editorial Page, next to the editorials, was filled with syndicated columns because there weren't enough letters.
Sugg stuck to his goal. Gradually the number of letters increased; we found, for one thing, that the more we printed, the more we got.
Something like the reverse is true now: The more letters we get, the fewer, proportionately, we can run. There simply isn't room for them all, and that's been the case for a decade or so. Just in the past seven months - last July through this January - we received 2,419 letters to the editor; in the same period, we printed 1,253. We got nearly twice as many as we could use.
We regret not being able to give space to everyone who cares enough about public affairs - and how the newspaper covers them - to write us. We value your views and wish we could pass all of them along to other readers.
It's good that we get more letters than we have room for. It shows that people are reading the newspaper and are interested in its contents. More important, it indicates that they are concerned and involved, and want to speak out. That's one of democracy's vital signs.
But that leaves us on the editorial staff with the problem of deciding who makes it into print and who, at least for the time being, gets left out. The task is complicated when the flow is especially heavy, as happened in January. That month, we received 461 letters; we were able to use 180.
We want to retain our regular correspondents while encouraging new ones. To that end, a couple of years ago we extended from 30 days to 60 the interval between letters we accept from the same individual. Last month, we began sending postcards acknowledging the letters we've decided not to print and thanking writers for their interest.
Those cards say, in part: "We don't have space to run all the letters we receive." But that tells nothing about how and why we run those we do; it doesn't say what might help you get your next letter published.
Generally, here's what we prefer:
Short, pithy letters. Yes, we run some that exceed our 200-word guideline. But short ones are easier to process and to find room for on the Editorial Page.
> Well-written letters. You don't have to be a professional writer, but the better you express your views, the likelier they'll be printed. That doesn't rule out everyone else; there will always be a place on the page for strongly held opinions sincerely voiced. We can edit to make them more readable.
Letters that deal with timely topics: events in the news and on readers' minds. The more timely the subject - say, a bill that the General Assembly will soon vote on - the sooner we try to run it.
(We know we do an imperfect job of this. Sometimes it takes a few days to verify the signature on a letter from a new correspondent, but we feel it's important to do so. There are other delays, some of which we must take blame for. Nearly every letter has a time factor, and nearly every one we've selected cries out to be run immediately. They can't all make it onto the next day's page. We chafe under that limitation, even as letter-writers do.)
In contrast, letters dealing with matters of substance that haven't received much public discussion or news coverage. You may have a worry, say, about traffic safety in your neighborhood that you think the police haven't adequately addressed. A letter could bring action.
> Letters that focus on the merits and demerits of an issue, rather than on personalities. Even extensive editing can't always salvage letters that attack an individual's character rather than his/her views or actions.
Letters that offer new information or a different viewpoint on some familiar topic. When a controversial issue has been in the news for some time, most opinions on both sides have been voiced, and letters begin plowing the same ground. We try to keep from boring readers with such repetition. Sometimes a topic gets so worn out that we stop printing those letters.
We also try to give a fair shake to opposing sides, although we don't necessarily keep a running count of pro and con. The notion persists among some people that we don't print views that disagree with the newspaper's editorials. A look at the letters forum almost any day in the week should refute that idea. We like to get letters that differ strongly with us; they're more interesting to readers and also expand public discussion.
Sometimes debate on an issue is dominated by ideologues who hold rigid, formulaic opinions and presume to speak for millions who remain silent. Not so with the Persian Gulf war. Scores of readers have poured out heartfelt emotions and convictions in letters to the newspaper. We're trying to run as many of those as we can, from time to time opening up additional space for them on this, the Commentary Page.
If we haven't run a letter of yours yet, keep trying. More than anything else, it helps to write them short; the more of those we get, the more we can fit in. Meantime, maybe you have ideas on how we could improve our handling of letters. Let us hear from you.
by CNB