The festive season is winding down, but for those of us who are privileged to handle letters to the editor, every day is like Christmas (with a bit of Halloween thrown in from time to time). You just never know what you’re going to get when you open the morning’s mail.
While the letters page belongs to the readers, it’s up to us ink-stained wretches to choose the letters that get published, and we don’t do that whimsically. We are occasionally accused of suppressing certain points of view or printing only those letters that support our opinions. But one of the main goals is to present a diversity of views on the letters page — we often pair pro and con letters on the same subject, for example.
And if a letter comes in that counters one of our editorials, we’re pleased. Such letters almost always get published, providing they conform to the guidelines.
Ah, those guidelines. Why do we place certain constraints on letters? Why not simply flow the words onto the page unaltered, in the interests of freedom of expression?
Because freedom of expression doesn’t negate standards of civility, fairness, accuracy, literacy and legality. The public is better served by intelligent, lively debate that focuses on the point in question, rather than being subjected to flaming invective. Name-calling and groundless accusations do little to advance the conversation, and in most cases, detract from the issue. The argument shouldn’t get personal.
And you can’t accuse someone — even a politician — of illegal or corrupt actions without incontrovertible proof of wrongdoing.
Occasionally, a public figure earns a good skewering, and we don’t mind some sharp criticism. That’s sharp though, not blunt — criticism should get to the point and not devolve into attacks on a person’s appearance, sex, age, religion, race or other characteristic not related to the issue.
Don’t presume to know someone else’s hidden motives or unspoken thoughts. If the premier has a secret agenda, it’s probably secret.
Every letter is edited and changes are made where needed for clarity, accuracy, length and what we call newspaper style — the way such things as dates and numbers are written. (We’re not picking on letter-writers — everyone gets edited, even the editor-in-chief.) Editing is usually minor — if drastic changes are needed, we try to consult the writer.
Because we usually receive far more letters than we can use, some that conform to the guidelines don’t make it to print. If we receive several letters that express the same point, we try to choose one or two that make the point best. We look first for letters that focus on a current topic.
We will also cut off debate before point and counterpoint turn into an endless tennis match.
Here are a few other points to improve chances of a letter being published.
Be succinct. We impose a limit of 250 words, but the fewer words you use to make your point, the more powerful the letter. Stick to one point — if you combine two different topics, chances are, we’ll delete one.
Write about what you know, and from your own experience. Usually avoid quotes — as witty as Mark Twain was, we would rather read your words than his.
Try to remember what you learned in junior high about grammar, spelling and punctuation. On the other hand, if you are self-conscious about your writing abilities, don’t let that hold you back. That’s what editors are for.
A newspaper is like a jealous lover — we insist letters be exclusive to the Times Colonist. Letters addressed to other publications are not accepted.
Keep those cards and letters coming, but within reason — to give everyone an opportunity, writers are restricted to one letter a month. And I hope you enjoy writing those letters as much as we enjoy reading them.
David Bly is an editorial writer for the Times Colonist.
