It’s the pulpit for the readers, thousands and thousands of them, to advance their own ideas, disagree with the newspaper itself and even to disagree with other writers of Letters to the Editor.
And what makes them so valuable is the fact that the writers are required to sign their names. This allows readers of the newspaper to “consider the source” day in and day out. It also allows the newspaper to monitor what is written and by whom. Many letters that arrive at a newspaper are unsuitable for publication, some because they are outright libelous, others because they are flatly untrue, others that are filled with expletives.
|
Advertisement |
And what I have always treasured is the fact that people who write a Letter to the Editor must sign their names.
And “as the world turns” (some call it progress), technology has become more and more a part of everything we see, hear and do. Newspapers, having been dragged into the newest and latest in the world of communications, joined the world of the internet. And in so doing, along came the presentation of news and opinion by the newspapers on their Web sites.
Included are what are actually “Letters to the Editor”, but not labeled that way. Readers of the newspaper websites are encouraged to voice their opinions on the Web site.
However, unfortunately newspapers no longer require that the opinions include the name of the writer. Thus, the backbone of the Letters to the Editor of the newspaper has been broken. Writers no longer have to identify themselves; they hide behind initials or fake names or nicknames, anything to hide their identity. And newspapers publish them. I think this is unfortunate.
The most unfortunate arena is politics. There used to be a time when people who had a political gripe had to “fess up” and reveal who they were. No more. People who have political axes to grind merely have to go to a newspaper Web site and fire away at anybody they want to. And politicians are fair game. If website editors don’t print what is sent, they are accused of censoring public opinion. If they require that website blogs be signed, I guarantee you that you will read almost none.
I applaud the very few who are willing to stand up and be counted, those who sign their names when submitting opinions to a newsaper website. I personally don’t think that newspapers should accept unsigned opinion on their websites sites. To me, it makes little sense that the newspaper will not publish an unsigned letter in the printed edition, but will publish all kinds of unsigned submissions on their internet websites. Where’s the logic?
As the politicians say, “I’m Lou Major Sr., and I approve this message.”
Lou Major Sr. is a former publisher of The Daily News.
Comments
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 9, 2009 10:45 AM:
" I'm tired of speaking up at the City Council Meetings, only to be told:
1. Bogalusa has no money ... we're broke!
2 This problem has existed for years, Mr. Chandler
3. We are the government, we make the laws... we don't enforce them, that is the Mayor's job.
4. Our tax base is eroding because so many people are moving away from Bogalusa.
5. New businesses don't want to locate in Bogalusa. We are a poor city(parish). "fix" Bogalusa. "
worth repeating! "
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 5, 2009 11:39 PM:
1. Bogalusa has no money ... we're broke!
2 This problem has existed for years, Mr. Chandler
3. We are the government, we make the laws... we don't enforce them, that is the Mayor's job.
4. Our tax base is eroding because so many people are moving away from Bogalusa.
5. New businesses don't want to locate in Bogalusa. We are a poor city(parish) ...
I want to hear SOMEBODY say and DO something to "fix" Bogalusa. "
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 5, 2009 8:53 AM:
SIGN ME: DISGUSTED! "
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 5, 2009 8:43 AM:
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 5, 2009 8:35 AM:
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 5, 2009 8:27 AM:
... I am more convinced than ever that Bogalusa needs a change of politicians in City Hall!
... one councilperson said to me, "I have those same problems in my neighborhood, Mr. Chandler, it is a city-wide problem" ...
(more will follow) "
sasha wrote on Aug 4, 2009 5:13 PM:
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 4, 2009 10:00 AM:
" As m.m points out, many people do not use their real names for fear of retaliation, harassment, cyber-stalking, etc. Some people feel that corruption and misconduct are so deeply imbedded in the politics and government of this city that anonymous posts are their only SAFE VOICE against a broken system. The potential for "libelous statements" and "damaging innuendo" are real, but also easily misconstrued, and individuals unfairly targeted when a real name is attached. "
... This is still a democracy! I "
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 4, 2009 9:47 AM:
Y. Samuelson wrote on Aug 4, 2009 2:08 AM:
Please to see you both are back on point!
The only people upset or angry are the ones who hope that you continue your war of words. Kudos to the both of you. "
Edmond Paul Chandler wrote on Aug 3, 2009 6:14 PM:
jmcgr wrote on Aug 2, 2009 4:52 PM:
Marcus wrote on Aug 1, 2009 11:19 PM:
lumber_girl wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:39 PM:
Aries wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:18 PM:
Aries wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:07 PM:
Please let us get the record straight, I have been using the name Aries, NOT Aries Taurus. Also how do you identify a "have not". I do not withhold my real name for any reason, except that is none of your business, and you identifying people as "haves" and "have nots" what is your description. Who has given you the power to judge, maybe you should run for office. "
Y.Samuelson wrote on Jul 29, 2009 2:18 AM:
marcus wrote on Jul 28, 2009 12:19 AM:
Y. Samuelson wrote on Jul 27, 2009 12:19 AM:
AriesTaurus wrote on Jul 26, 2009 10:26 PM:
Mr. Major finds it valuable for writers to sign their names so that readers can "consider the source". This is not suprising to me as Bogalusa is comprised of "HAVE'S" and "HAVE NOTS". If a writer were the latter, their opinion would not be valued as credible.
I agree with Y. Samuelson "
c. wrote on Jul 26, 2009 10:10 AM:
m.m. wrote on Jul 26, 2009 9:56 AM:
Edmond Paul Ed Chandler wrote on Jul 25, 2009 9:14 AM:
marcus wrote on Jul 25, 2009 5:56 AM:
Because we can wrote on Jul 25, 2009 2:01 AM:
What the Heck wrote on Jul 22, 2009 9:39 AM:
Aries wrote on Jul 20, 2009 11:15 PM:
You are obviously a unhappy person and have nothing to do with your time except complain.
If I signed my name you would not know who I am, I don't live in your town nor would I. Why don't you plant some flowers, do some volunteer work, donate your time for some good. I believe all of us would recognize your postings without your name being signed.. Pleasant dreams. "
Y. Samuelson wrote on Jul 16, 2009 1:16 AM:
Scott Martin wrote on Jul 13, 2009 1:28 PM:
I take issue with your assertion that an idea is not to be taken seriously if it's offered anonymously or under a pseudonym.
"Vanity of vanities," saith the Preacher, "All is vanity." Is that statement, and the rest of Ecclesiastes, any less profound because we don't know who the Preacher is? Neither did the author of book of Hebrews supply his name, but his words have echoed through millenia. "
Scott Martin wrote on Jul 13, 2009 1:28 PM:
Whether someone withholds a name for serious or trivial reasons, content should dictate whether to take a submission seriously. You said over the years you've received letters full of profanity, smears, and threats-- all great reasons to dismiss a submission as unserious (or to forward it to that police as dangerous). Anonymity is separate from any of that. "
Scott Martin wrote on Jul 13, 2009 1:25 PM:
Scott Martin, who has also posted at this site as scott_m "