- IdahoStatesman.com
- Blogs
- Bronco Beat
- Murph's Turf
- Varsity Extra
- Idaho Newsreader
- Inside Idaho Business
- Commentary: Kevin Richert
- Letters from the West
- Helping Works
- Idaho Politics
- Inside the Idaho Legislature
- Into the Outdoors
- Living The Dream
- What We see
- Words & Deeds
- The Beer Nut: Patrick Orr
- What's Online
- TechIdaho
- The Cinemaniac
- Recent Posts
- Content
Online letters to the editor: What do you think?
Submitted by Kevin Richert on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:46am.
Every month, I get a tally of how many letters we published in the Statesman.
This morning, I got two numbers, reflecting the 325 letters in print, plus 207 election-related letters published online.
This grew out of necessity: an 11th-hour influx of election-related letters. But it has me thinking about how we should handle letters in the future.
If we made online-only letters a regular feature, this would allow us to give more readers their say. It might also allow us to publish letters in a timelier fashion, another plus. It also gives us a little bit more flexibility for publishing syndicated columns on national and international issues.
On the downside, I'm sure many letter writers would much prefer their letter appear in print and online, as opposed to only running online. I know I would. This puts us in the position of having to pick some letters to put in print and some that won't make print. During the elections, Assistant Editorial Page Editor David Bomar worked meticulously to ensure we ran a representative sample of election letters in print, reflecting the number of letters received in support of the candidates. It's doable, but it is something we'd want to make sure we do right.
So as we recognize the continuing shift of readership toward online, give me your take. Should we move more letters online?
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo»
- Kevin Richert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
That's a good question.
----------
We Are NOT ALONE...
They refuse to fly over here and bail our butts out anymore though.
Here is a suggestion, Kevin
Eighty-six the letters that are irrelevant and do not belong in the Letters to the Editor. Take for instance that one today, where the woman was complaining about her discomfort on her Delta flight. Who cares? When did Letters to the Editor, become the Personal Complaint Department? That's what your hair dresser is for. Do you have a shortage of letters that you needed to print something that inane?
You might also get rid of the letters about who stole my pink flamingo off of my lawn last week? That also belongs in the Complaint Department.
Lastly, let's get rid of the "Thank you for..." letters. If someone wants to thank someone, that's why Hallmark makes cards. Better yet, let them take out a personal add.
If would be nice if the letters to the editor were relevant to Idaho public policy or events. This personal stuff doesn't belong in the Opinion section of a newspaper.
Come on Kevin, you are the Editor. Feel the power and edit! Edit means you get to cut out the extraneous garbage.
Thanks for the feedback
brt929: "Feel the power?" I try not to look at it that way. Basically, when we reject a letter, we're telling a reader that we're not interested in what he or she has to say.
For obvious reasons, we do that sparingly.
Our policy, for the 7 1/2 years I've been here and well before that, has been to publish just about every letter we get. We have only a few types of letters we won't run (libelous letters, business complaints, letters about religion which have no tie-in to a current issue).
This is a broad-based policy, by design. It allows someone to write a public thank-you letter — as opposed to a Hallmark card. It allows a lot of letters that don't relate to public policy.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm still going to try to give a forum to as many readers as I can. The question is how to make the best use of the online forum.
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
Different Section
And if that's the Statesman policy to print anything, make a separate section. You already have Reader's Opinion; make a Reader's Comments section.
But as I've written before, Letters to the Editor should be a special section where the public can criticize (or compliment) the publisher for the paper as it relates to the freedom of press, i.e. "your liberal agenda stinks" and "Rocky should be fired" and "thanks for exposing that dirtbag".
BTW most readers are NOT interested in most of the Letters due to the fact they have become irrelevent letters. Imagine a whole page of FO's comments in print- no one wants to read them.
Whee. Aren't we Steinbeck, the budding critic.
----------
We Are NOT ALONE...
They refuse to fly over here and bail our butts out anymore though.
I SO agree with brt929
She/he said it all, I know that "community" papers are supposed to do that horsepatootey like thank-yous and blahblah but its a new era with a new way of thinking. If there is an outcry then make a separate space in the paper for that sort of twaddle.
Feel the power and edit, is right. Made a bold move. It will shock everyone being the statesman and all but i dare ya.
We'd just answer Yes. or No. all the time and stifle opinion.
Or babble a lot like the Football fans.
----------
We Are NOT ALONE...
They refuse to fly over here and bail our butts out anymore though.
It goes back to THIS...
Dear Editor,
When will Channel 7 stop preempting McCloud and Macmillan and Wife for some silly quiz show? Once gone, gone forever you know...
Horace Clickerslapper
Garden City
Hope you are still following this thread, Kevin
Anything that would shorten the time between letter submittal and publication would be welcome. As it is, letters to the editor are often stale and overcome by events.
Also, it is admirable that you try to publish every letter you receive, even those which are based on bogus facts. But you can certainly distinguish the bogus based letters from the legitimate most of the time and those belong on-line, not in print.
Still following the thread — and I appreciate your thoughts
You've hit on one of my big concerns: timely publication of letters. Our pages will never be able to duplicate the real-time experience of online comments, and aren't designed to serve that purpose. But we need to publish letters in a timely manner in order to have a lively letters section; letter writers and readers deserve it.
So, moving some letters to online-only could help.
As for "bogus" letters, I should clarify. We do not (and simply cannot) fact-check every letter that comes in. But if we see a letter that makes claims we know to be demonstrably false, we'll reject the letter or ask the writer to resubmit it. If a letter makes claims that we'd like to verify, we'll ask writers to show us their sources. It's not a perfect system, but it helps. I think we'd continue doing this with letters for print or online, holding both to the same standard.
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
Print is king
Online-only would be a mistake. There are many readers not using the online version- old people for example.
The Statesman should be first and foremost a print newspaper.
As a side note: We all understand you do not fact check every letter. It's apparent you don't even have time to fact check your own writers like Rocky Barker. And we all know you have not invested in spell-check or grammar software. Don't worry, we don't expect much.
McClatchy doesn't even have an idea about the censor (Corporate)
----------
We Are NOT ALONE...
They refuse to fly over here and bail our butts out anymore though.
I would prefer...
both outlets. However, the new format for the online forum is not a good as the one used for your blog. For example, I like the ability to reply to a specific comment instead of the new format.
boiseriver: Like this! 2. The Pluck forum quotes that poster.
----------
We Are NOT ALONE...
They refuse to fly over here and bail our butts out anymore though.