Recent Entries
Appropriate response or overreaction?
Backing down on payday loan sharks
Monthly Archives
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
RSS Feeds
12
Let’s talk about letters, again
Dec 29, 2006A frequent letter-writer and blog-poster, Melanie, wants to know why I edited two of her letters to the editor. She believes I changed the meaning by clarifying the language.
Since her query was at the end of a rather old post on the old blog, I thought I would move it here ... since it allows for a general discussion of the editing of letters to the editor. I post her blog in its entirety:
I have sent in blogs that have not been posted for what ever reason I do not know. I have sent in letters to the editor and they have been edited to be politically correct. We will see if this blog is edited and I will let you know.
I learned that freedom of speech is different in the newspaper. I sent in a letter again and asked to review it first because I wanted to see if what was going to be printed was actually what I had to say and this is the response I got from Andrea “Its against policy to allow prior review. If that is the condition under which you want your letter published, it wont be published. This isnt personal. Sorry”
My letters were not vulgar or had words that should not be published but held thoughts and opinions. Blogs may have different rules than letters to the editor. I just think if a person writes a letter to the editor and it is edited, for what ever reason, it changes the meaning and the expression of ideas and opinions of the person who sent it.
Case in point… a letter written about the Cinemall in Abingdon “Mr.
Westons concern and conviction of endangering the reputation of the Cinemall” were my words. The printed article left out the word conviction
because it was deemed to be too critical in nature of content.
Another case in point concerning was Homosexuals in the church written to the editor. My words were , homosexuals should not be allowed to become “members” of the body or accepted participation, which would give them the approval and the endorsement of their lifestyle, just like those who have addictions of drugs, alcohol, sex, and other willful sin.
This is what was printed. However, homosexuals should not be allowed to become “members” of the body or accepted participants. This would give
approval and endorsement of their lifestyle. My whole point was to relate
the addictions of drugs, alcohol, sex and the homosexual lifestyle as equal sins. But the drugs, alcohol, and sex were left out only citing the issue of homosexuality. Letters to the editor are edited for what ever reason and words are changed left out.
Posted by Andrea Hopkins On the Damascus streaker and MLK
Dec 26, 2006On Sunday’s editorial page, interim Managing Editor Todd Foster graciously agreed to pinch hit for me as guest columnist. In his column, he tackles both the subject of the Damascus streaker and the decision to honor Martin Luther King Jr. with a street named for him in Bristol.
On Sunday’s editorial page, interim Managing Editor Todd Foster graciously agreed to pinch hit for me as guest columnist. In his column, he tackles both the subject of the Damascus streaker and the decision to honor Martin Luther King Jr. with a street named for him in Bristol.
Foster explains some of the decision-making process that led to the publication of the streaker piece and discusses some of the less than exemplary feedback on the King street decision. It’s worth a read.
- Andrea Hopkins
Back to life, back to reality
Dec 26, 2006I am back at my desk after 10 days off. I’m not sure it was a vacation, since I didn’t go anywhere. I offer this as an explanation to Chris, who asked for a new post.
I am back at my desk after 10 days off. I’m not sure it was a vacation, since I didn’t go anywhere. I offer this as an explanation to Chris, who asked for a new post.
That said, I’m not sure what’s top of the news right now. I’m patiently delving into the e-mails, voice mail and letters that piled up in my absence. I should be done this time next week.
So, I offer this post-holiday open thread and a question: What would you all like to talk about in this final week of 2006?
- Andrea Hopkins
