This week, counting commentaries, and Rowland Gilbert’s latest poem, we have 22 items marked for inclusion on our editorial page. We print almost everything we receive, not everything of course, and of course, not everything we do print is edited to the author’s satisfaction, but nonetheless, we are committed to supporting free speech and this is the venue to do it.
One of the letters we are round-filing this week takes issue with a letter we published last week.
In three scant sentences this week’s respondent blasts the original writer as a “rank liberal” and harrumphs, ‘If you don’t believe 100 percent as he does, you’re a fool, a numskull (sic), a racist, a commie, a pervert and totally ignorant to boot.’
That’s it. That is the sum total of the writer’s point.
We hold this letter up as an example of what not to do for our letters page. This kind of third grade name-calling does nothing to advance debate and is hardly worthy of the American blood shed for the freedom to say it. We don’t receive a lot of letters like this but the ones we do receive get the consideration they deserve.
As the candidates begin the stretch run for votes in November, now might be a good time to review a few ground rules for our letter writers. We want and encourage an exchange of ideas. We encourage writers to use this platform to express an opinion, a reasoned point of view.
We do not condone a personal attack on another letter writer. This is the difference between “I disagree with what so and so said,” and “so and so is an idiot because he/she said that,” which is the problem with the letter quoted above.
We also discourage what we call pure attack letters. These are letters that kick and scream about the candidate the letter writer opposes with no mention of why they support the candidate they do. Compare and contrast candidates for the public’s enlightenment. In an era when news outlets largely cater to one base or another, we need more information, not less.
Finally, right up until the next to last issue before an election, we make every effort to provide an equal opportunity for response. In that last pre-election issue, we can’t in good conscience print something that deserves or requires a response, say an allegation regarding a candidate’s stance on whatever issue.
For our purposes, if you are making an allegation you know someone is going to want to respond to, please allow time for them to do it.
Life is not fair, and we alone can’t make it fair, but we will do the best we can.
