Editor's mail bag; stardate 4/14/10

You can tell it's an election year by the volume of mail coming in as letters to the editor.

It's going to be an exciting one from what I can tell.

Whenever there are chops at current First District Congressman Tim Walz, it seems there are two that come in to mediate and cut off the chops, if that is possible in the somewhat disjointed world of following the letters to the editor.

Much to the surprise of popular folklore, the editor does not pick and choose to print letters depending on if they agree with his or her own political views. That's a myth that I hope to one day destroy so badly it cries for mercy.

And given some of the letters I've let through, I'd be quite a schizophrenic, politically, that is.

But people will think what they want to think. I will reject letters if they are 1. profane, 2, above the 275 word limit, 3. so mean-spirited, I don't think they will spur civil discourse, and 4. Will get us sued.

Remember, newspapers can be sued for printing other people's lies and libel. (The term slander, incidentally, applies to the spoken word, not the written word.)

Letters can also be rejected if they cite facts that are not generally known (yes that is subjective) and don't cite the source of those facts. I always give the writer a chance to get me sources, and some do and some don't.

Their source can be the communist weekly newsletter if they want, as long as they tell readers where they're getting this stuff.

Letters to the editor are probably not what a family counselor would recommend as a way to resolve "family" differences. They can be vehement, argumentative and border on name calling (we try to limit that).

But the letters page, by its nature, can be confrontational and controversial. I guess that sells more papers, but we must think, every once in a while, if it really advances solving community problems.

I think it does if we keep it civil. That's the high expectation I have for our letter writers. I'm sure they'll come through.