Astroturf floods, flaming nostrils and your letters
| Saturday, Aug 22 2009 08:32 PM
Last Updated Saturday, Aug 22 2009 08:35 PM
If we at The Californian have learned anything from the past week, it's that people don't always do change well. More than a few folks have complained about the new tabloid-format weekday edition, and some of those calls came in to the Opinion section -- despite the fact that here in this little corner of your newspaper (and I hope some of you noticed this), we're actually offering about 20 percent more opinion and analysis on a daily basis than before.
I'm reassured by the amount of love we've received, and I'm convinced the weekday tab will grow on those who aren't quite so enthusiastic. Give it a little time.
Anyway, this time of reevaluation and change seemed like a good opportunity to look at the way the Opinion section works and reacquaint readers with our rules of engagement. I'm talking, of course, about letters to the editor. Please bear these things in mind as you prepare to put pen to paper:
* Write your own letter. This has really been the year for "astroturf," that phony, mass-produced "grass roots" stuff that emanates from partisan propaganda machines, industry lobbying groups, union headquarters and innumerable other spinmeisters. It works like this: The organization in question (gay rights, anti-tax, you name it) provides the "astroturf" form letter portraying the issue as compellingly (but not necessarily as truthfully) as possible. The citizen-voter, having been sent the "astroturf" via e-mail or overland post, needs only sign his or her name and forward it to the local newspaper.
These cookie-cutter missives are pretty easy to spot. A telltale sign: an e-mail that has already been forwarded six times. Hmm. Another giveaway: I once ran across a letter that began, "Dear (insert name of editor here)." Then you've got the hyperbole-laced rants filled with exclamation points. But many astroturf deliveries are well written (too well written, in many cases) and sprinkled generously with pseudo-facts.
The liberal political organization Moveon.org has been playing that game with newspapers across the country in recent weeks with pre-packaged letters that lay out a case for dramatic health care reform. Conservative groups are at it too, and with even greater vigor.
A local woman shipped us a pile just last week: "... President Obama wants to tax my family even more to pay for his health care bill. But that's not the worst of it. He is mandating that abortion be covered under the health care plan ..." Heartfelt, no doubt, but not original. Letters with substantially identical language have appeared in various newspapers from New Jersey to North Carolina to Ohio to Louisiana.
The local letter-writer, informed of this discovery, was incensed. "You and your staff are accusing me of submitting a 'form letter' and then further, of lying. I hardly think that's a professional practice." It is, in fact, a professional practice, practiced by every editor in my profession. (Except, apparently, for a few in New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Louisiana, who were apparently too busy to be suspicious.)
Editors hate these unoriginal letters. "Turf is the scum that floats on the ocean of public opinion," veteran editor Rob Bignell wrote in a National Conference of Editorial Writers listserv discussion. "It is spewed from the effluent pipes of PR agencies and political action committees. By reducing available sunlight, turf kills independent thinking, personal integrity and creativity."
I avoid it. You should, too.
The other problem with the previously referenced letter, of course, is interpretation of facts. The word abortion does not appear in any of the current health care legislation, and the controversial procedure is already covered by most private insurance plans and existing government programs, at least under certain circumstances. Would it be fair (assuming it was original) to publish a letter suggesting Obama would add language guaranteeing such coverage if given the chance? A tough call, made all the tougher by the tenor of the health care reform debate.
* Get to the point. Many newspapers limit readers' letters to 200, or even 150 words. We still draw the line at 250, though that's something we'll continue to evaluate. I find that the best letters make their point in 100 words so. Just because your letter comes in at 249 words doesn't mean we might not do a little judicious whittling to help you get to the point faster, conserve space for other letters, and cut passages that repeat others' points.
* Identify yourself. We need your true and full name, your address and your phone number so we can verify that your letter really came from you. We don't publish addresses or phone numbers. Never have, never will.
* Be civil. It might be tough to restrain yourself with those flames shooting out of your nostrils, but try anyway. Incivility begets incivility. We're inclined to remove or tone down your more inflammatory words.
I'm glad I got this off my chest. Something on yours? Tell me. In your own words.
E-mail Robert Price at rprice@bakersfield.com, or send your letter to opinion@bakersfield.com.
