|
Annual
Report 2001 : Letters To The Editor
LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR
Complaints
about letters continue to feature prominently in the
Press Council's adjudications. In 2001 there were nine
complaints about non-acceptance of letters, and several
others objecting to letters that had been published
or to the way they had been abridged or edited.
There
is no mystery about the failure of minds to meet concerning
letters that are not accepted. The letter-writer is
intent on one thing - getting a point of view on a particular
subject into print. A publication's editorial staff,
on the other hand, has to weigh numerous bids for space
and make many judgments in shaping the forthcoming edition,
with the overall aim of making the newspaper or magazine
as balanced and varied, as fresh and stimulating, as
possible. As part of a publication's Opinion pages,
the Letters section can contribute a wide range of lively,
thoughtful, provocative commentary. Just as journalists
find to their dismay that articles they have worked
on don't reach print because of constraints on space,
or queries about the article's continuing topicality
or quality, letter-writers have to accept that what
they submit may also be spiked. One metropolitan New
Zealand daily prints about 60 percent of the letters
it receives; many therefore have to be rejected for
one or more reasons.
The
Letters section is a vital part of any newspaper's involvement
with its community, and is often described as the people's
forum. However, this does not mean that it can be exempt
from the editor's judgment in determining what goes
into the pages, and in editing the texts submitted.
The Press Council's Principle 12 is very clear:
"Selection and treatment of letters for publication
are the prerogative of editors who are to be guided
by fairness, balance, and public interest on the correspondents'
views."
The
frustration of unsuccessful letter-writers is not eased
by what is happening in other media. Talkback radio
is well established as a means of sounding off, with
constraints on time, rather than quality, determining
what goes to air. The rapid development of interactive
Internet websites has similarly boosted the expectation
that individual viewpoints will speedily reach an audience.
Across the world, newspaper websites are vigorously
promoting the diversity of new ways in which feedback
can be made.
Message board, talk boards, chat-on-line and similar
pages compete eagerly for reader and viewer participation:
Have Your Say Straightaway On Burning Issues; Join Or
Start A Conversation On Whatever Interests You. One
newspaper in northern England runs a Spout 'n' Shout
talk board. Some newspapers have multiple community
boards covering the different interests of readers.
Some nominate topics for forum sessions well in advance,
with frequent urging "to keep your eyes on the page
for the next big debate".
The
emphasis in Internet feedback talk boards, etc is on
short, sharp e-mail messages. Overseas, the trend is
for Letters to the Editor pages to reprint a selection
of these brief messages, thus broadening their mix of
material and enabling more contributors to appear in
print. It will be interesting to see if this leads generally
- both here and overseas - to a greater proportion of
very brief messages in letters pages.
In these Internet sites there is, of course, concern
for standards but the general assumption is that participants
will be able to post their views, with editorial intervention
coming principally through removal of unacceptable material
from the site.
Letters to the Editor, on the other hand, undergo careful
scrutiny and editing before anything appears in print.
This is time-consuming, especially in small newspaper
offices with few staff to cover all the daily tasks.
Some disappointed letter-writers are particularly aggrieved
that they hear nothing back by way of acknowledgment
of their letters. Again, there often aren't the human
resources to provide a response. Some newspapers have
very usefully developed a Replies To Correspondents
end-note, in which named contributors are advised of
the reasons for non-acceptance or that their points
have been noted.
The
Press Council believes that many of the complaints it
receives would not be made if there were better understanding
of how letters are chosen for publication.
The
procedure in one major New Zealand daily illustrates
the time and care that go into preparing the Letters
section. Each letter as it is received is logged into
a diary. It is first read by the editor's personal assistant
who checks to see whether name and address and other
information are included. She also attaches any background
material - for example, an earlier news item - to the
letter. Then the person in charge of the Letters section
goes through them all and notes whether they will be
published, referred to a third party for comment, or
not published. The editor then goes through the letters
again and makes the final decision as to what is printed
and whether a particular letter should jump the queue
because it is very topical. Published letters are then
filed so they are available for reference. The editor
seeks to publish a wide range of opinion on current
topics, and sees the Letters section as one of the editor's
ways of making a distinctive mark on the quality of
the paper.
Regular
printing on letters pages of the submission rules is
necessary. Generally, rules deal with formal requirements
(such as format, method of submission, address and signature
details and maximum length) and specify the reasons
for editing letters, such as legal and space constraints,
clarity and topicality. The Press Council believes that
readers should be told that letters might be abridged.
The Press Council has also recommended that when there
is abridgement, a note should be appended to the published
letter. Some newspapers put specific limits on how often
a particular correspondent will be considered for publication.
Some
sets of in-house rules and guidelines go further. One
overseas newspaper says: "We no longer print letters
that directly respond to other letters. If you wish
to reply to another letter, stick to the issues involved
and avoid all reference to the other letter". Another
advises: "Do not engage in recriminations against earlier
correspondents. Try to advance the debate so that other
readers might join in the discussion in subsequent letters."
For
some editors, there is the problem of the vexatious
correspondent whose response to rejection of a letter
may be to fire off several more, or to try to berate
the editor in person. The Press Council strongly supports
the right of editors to lay down rules, not just for
the submission and editing of letters, but also for
their dealings with correspondents so as to ensure that
scarce editorial time is not wasted, and the interests
of other correspondents are protected.
|