The Inlander/January 2010
Election season is upon us. Simply look at the letters that are crossing editors’ desks.
It’s that time of year when editors and the public will become reacquainted with the Boy Scout Law. As an Eagle Scout myself, I still can recite the credo from memory: “A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.”
OK, so I exaggerate. But show me a candidate for elective office, and I’ll produce letters from supporters that extol values befitting of an upstanding scout.
Editors are increasingly challenged to separate the wheat from the chaff in today’s orchestrated letter-writing campaigns. Election season demands special guidelines to let writers have their say and still maintain some control over the letters column. It’s not too early to sound the alarm to candidates and readers alike.
Here is one checklist. Newsrooms should have a brainstorming session to tailor the policies to their circumstances:
Edit liberally: For starters, it’s a good bet that the introductory and concluding paragraphs can be eliminated from all election letters. From there, feel free to edit aggressively for redundancy. The delete button on your keyboard should receive extra workout as election day nears.
Limit the frequency and length of letters. For elections, consider restrictions such as one letter for the primary election campaign and one for the general election – or one letter per race for those individuals who wish to weigh in on several contests. Set a word limit, and make few exceptions without strong justification. A lot can be conveyed in, say, 300 words.
Verify: Confirm all letters, preferably with a phone call. Be wary of letters coming from the same e-mail address or FAX number.
Dos, don’ts of responses: The letters column is typically used to respond to issues raised in stories, editorials and other letters. Exceptions may arise, but letters usually should not be a forum for candidates to react to paid ads. The best guideline is that candidates respond to the message in the same avenue as the original message.
Establish deadlines: Deadlines are necessary to allow ample opportunity to debate the issues. Set a separate deadline for letters that raise new issues.
Identify authors where appropriate: Some circumstances dictate that newspapers identify authors by position or relationship to a candidate. For example, school district business managers may write why it’s in the best interests to support a school levy referendum, or campaign managers might respond to criticism leveled against their candidates.
Set ground rules for rebuttals: Election season invariably produces letter-writing volleys among candidates and their supporters. Don’t be afraid of having reasonable ground rules; it’s in the best interests of readers. A good rule of thumb is to allow each individual two letters – the original plus a rebuttal.
Even the strictest of guidelines will not prevent the crush of election letters and the fact that not all ideas are “original.” Editors, however, should resist the temptation to arbitrarily accept some letters and discard others. There are avenues to let all writers express their opinions, even if in a limited manner.
For print editions, consider grouping the letters by candidate or issue. Step 2, edit the letters aggressively to two or three paragraphs. Step 3, run a banner headline identifying the candidate or issue, then publish the letters beneath, each with its own subhead.
If you’re still pressed for space, remember the Web. It’s an excellent avenue for overflow letters, especially those that are simply repeating themes of other letters. Reserve space in the print edition for the more substantive commentary.
Above all, editors should keep the exchange civil and not be afraid to ban letters on a particular issue or from certain individuals. As one editor wrote in a column to readers, newspapers should take seriously their role to encourage public debate on races and issues important to their citizenry. But when the public discourse is no longer productive or constructive, it’s appropriate to stop the debate.
