Meredith Jordan

Leader file photo

I wanted to take some time to write about our Opinion, Perspective and Creativity section. 

A couple of people have asked recently why we don’t aggressively screen more of the letters and columns we publish or ignore news generated by someone they find problematic. This one or that one is out of line, the argument goes. Please, choose their words more carefully or better yet, don’t cover them at all.

The Leader, like most newspapers, has a lower bar for accuracy in letters to the editor and columns than news reports because that content is explicitly opinion-based. Those pages are designed as a space for expression of subjective viewpoints and interpretations and we publish with a minimum of filtering. 

We seek a diversity of opinions and you will see some tweaks to our group of able columnists in the coming weeks. We’re in the market for younger voices and people of color, including for a regular column (or two). Write me and put COLUMN in the headline of the email with ideas.

The bar for letters is set low to include as many voices as possible. We want people to say what they think.The pages grant broad latitude for them to do that. We have higher expectations of columnists, who should base their views on accurate information, even if their conclusions are subjective. Sometimes a letter or column contains information that isn’t up to date. If it is easily shown to be misleading, we will seek an adjustment and/or alert the writer to a proposed edit.

Philosophically we seek to publish every single letter to the editor and while that isn’t possible, we’re pretty close. I can give a couple of examples where we haven’t published a letter.

Lately I’ve received a lot of letters from one person, sometimes as many as three or four in one day. These are angry, repetitive rants attacking one group they don’t like. No.

The limit is one 300-word letter per person per month, which can on occasion push up to 350 words, although not often. On rare occasions the same letter writer will slip through the cracks and end up with two letters in the same month. That happened recently, and it was an oversight on our part. Apologies to readers, particularly anyone who has been told to resubmit a letter in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, that individual has a two-month wait to write again. 

More typically, an opinion falls into a gray area where a point is made that doesn’t seem factually sound but it isn’t totally clear. Those generally go unchallenged in part because we think readers can discern the same stretch.

One example might be a letter that takes issue with a specific sentence in a prior letter or column while ignoring the context contained in the following sentence. Someone else might think that a detail further in the story should have been higher, or feel like a headline didn’t reflect the entirety of a story or column, or any manner of criticism of the newspaper.

We aim to publish all of it and believe, overwhelmingly, that if any community in our currently troubled nation can learn from opposing viewpoints, it is this one. 

What about columns or letters I personally disagree with?  I run them anyway. I have opinions, as do most of my colleagues. Inherent bias is real. It does not stop us from challenging each other when we see it and it does not stop us from putting opinions we disagree with in the paper. Indeed, we seek them out. That includes critiques of my work and that of the paper. (A good number of folks send constructive criticism with “not for publication” noted. Thank you.)

Finally, what about content that is obviously odious? I have a good example from last year, when we had a visiting designer on site laying out the opinion pages. He flagged a letter as “hate speech” and it was brought out for review by everyone in the newsroom. 

Everyone agreed with the designer. The writer crossed a line and was essentially attacking an entire group of people. The next question was whether the submission could be edited in a way that enabled his point while taking out the objectionable content. The letter was set aside for reconsideration the next week, where it was determined it could not be redeemed. The letter perished there, in the “hold” folder, replaced mentally with a note-to-self for added scrutiny to letters. 

That moment reaffirmed our commitment to balancing free expression with community standards.

But only so much scrutiny. The vast majority of time the opinion pages, despite flaws of content, foster positive dialogue. Reach Meredith Jordan at editor@ptleader.com.