An amendment to my dissertation on letters to the editor

Newspaper reporters and editors learn to summarize when they write.

Unfortunately, they do this at their peril.

So when I wrote recently that letter writers have to be civil, accurate, fair and within the 275 word limit, I was too brief and too vague.

I was recently challenged by a letter writer's friend and associate who couldn't figure out why their letter was rejected because they felt it met all the criteria listed.

Well, one criteria I assumed at my peril and did not articulate was this: Letters to the editor should and actually must be "about the news." They should be an "opinion" about "the news."

They're not really a place to say you love your aunt sally or that people should be nice to each other. While those are certainly worthy thoughts and I appreciate folks who have them, we have limited space and purpose in the letters column.

We generally want people to respond to what we put in the newspaper, i.e. the news.

I often get letters from people wanting to recite the homily they heard at church, quoting sometimes word for word. While it's laudable, it's not a "letter to the editor." The "letter to the editor" suggests you're going to address something the "editor" has done, or at least approved for publication.

And while this editor does attend church, he does not generally take religious commentary. Can you think of something more difficult to treat fairly? If we allow the Catholics to preach, we must allow the Lutherans, and their four of five branches, the Buddists, the Hindus, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Muslims......you get the picture.

We would never have any room for the regular folks just commenting on the news.

It's not to say religious folks are banned for the letters page, we just are not a surrogate for the pulpit. Besides, we wouldn't want to give people a reason for not going to church.

So, yes, a letter writer needs to comment on the news. Make it relevant. Preach if you want. Do it in 275 words and relate it to a story in the paper.

You're good.