Thayer Taxpayers Association Blog

I expected some flak for my latest letter to the editor, printed last week in the South Missourian News. Maybe the TCBA would respond with letters to the editor of their own.

So I was disappointed when I opened today's edition and found no such letters.

Then I read the "Our View" column, and was greatly amused at the lengths the editors went to not to say what they were saying. Nowhere in the column does my name appear, nor does any specific reference to my letter. But even rudimentary reading between the lines and consideration of the timing of the article leave me with little doubt what they are talking about.

They rarely put such things in their online edition, so if you want to read the whole thing, I'd advise getting a dead-tree copy. If you don't want to buy one, they have a copy at the Thayer Library for people to read there.

Here are some of the most relevant excerpts, from the piece titled "Too opinionated?":

A reader once complained, with no sense of irony, that the letters to the editor are too opinionated.

To complain that letters are too opinionated is akin to complaining that news stories are too factual.

Given that my letter was the only one to appear in last week's SMN, I think it's reasonable to assume that any complaints they got about printing a letter to the editor were about mine.

And it was certainly more opinionated than the usual stranded-motorist-thanking-the-good-samaritan-who-gave-her-a-lift fare that often appears in the paper's letters to the editor.

Perhaps more opinionated than the many people's comfort zone allows.

...
[In a poll conducted by the newspaper awhile back, some respondents complained about the length of letters to the editor.] We already had a word limit but enforced it only on rare occasions when we couldn't get all the letters to fit. We now enforce it more strictly -- but still not absolutely.

What was it I said about how they might not print my letter because it was too long? I didn't actually count the words, but it was fairly lengthy. It's hard to have an in-depth discussion of an issue with a 300 word limit. Nice of them to give me a heads-up about future letters, though.

Readers [responding to the same poll] complained about the writers whose letters appear frequently, a couple suggesting that writers be limited to a single letter each month. That was actually the policy already, but we have since restricted it even further; we don't publish letters from the same writer on the same subject in back-to-back letters, even if they are a month apart.

The poll was conducted "a few years ago." The timing of bringing up the response now is interesting. The column continues with a listing and explanation of some of it's letter policies. Among the most relevant are:

We reserve the right to edit all letters.

Remember how I complained about them taking out an important part of my letter, and using my title as the first sentence of the letter, so they could write their own title?

Writers should limit submissions to no more than once a month.

My previous letter was in November, which is more than a month, but I can certainly see people who disagree with me griping about the frequency of my letters.

Letters should not exceed 300 words.

As explained above, my letter was rather lengthy, so I can see those same people raising hell with the paper about how my letter didn't comply with their policy. But here, the paper comes to my, and their own, defense in such circumstances:

However, on that rare occasion when we deem a writer particularly articulate or insightful, we bend the rule.

...
Letters must include the name and phone number of the writer for verification.

Mine did, but that begs the question, did they get anonymous hate mail about my letter? If so, I'd like to see it.

The column closes with a sentence that both defends and scolds me, as well as plays a little CYOA:

Responsible editors try to provide objective leadership on issues through editorials, but honest editors also recognize there are many viewpoints on any issue, and the public good is served by airing those viewpoints even when -- perhaps especially when -- those viewpoints are contrary to the editorials.

IF it is the case that the paper received complaints about them printing my letter, then it is interesting to note that the complainers chose not REFUTE my assertations in a letter or a blog of their own, but rather to try to silence me by pressuring the paper.

Is it a case of "When you can't deny the message, silence the messenger."?

UPDATE: The SMN actually did put it in their online edition.