LET'S CHAT: Choose your words carefully, allow some room for dignity when challenging local decisons

Once upon a time a cub reporter (me, then a rookie) was trying to master multitasking while struggling to fulfill the demands of a meticulous, cantankerous, red-pen wielding and whiskey swilling, small town newspaper editor, who could have been considered as a prime character in the 1946 painting “Norman Rockwell Visits a Country Editor.”

The man I once considered a master editor would likely be sued today by employees for mental anguish or for creating a hostile work environment. But in the mid-1980s, things were still a bit more traditional in community newspaper offices and editors were a bit more heavy-handed, short on patience and at the very least, demanding.

This nameless editor ruled with an iron fist. He demanded we print facts, avoid injecting opinion and insisted that we leave our personal biases in the parking lot. He taught us to ensure complete privacy for news sources that sought to speak to us off the record.

I would see a different side when an angry politician or petty thief stormed through the door angrily waving the latest edition of the newspaper in the air, because they didn’t like seeing their name in print. The editor was always quick to push his chair away from the desk, leap to his feet and stride to greet the disgruntled person. He was swift in his defense of the content and the writer.

More than once, I witnessed verbal jousts at the front counter. They were heated and powerful at times. Often, they ended in stalemates. No matter, the editor had taught us well and believed in the integrity of our work and would defend it vigorously.

When my role was evolving and I began to be mentored as an editor, along came this new task — writing editorials — newspaper endorsed opinion pieces that often questioned the decisions and deliberations of government. Pick up almost any newspaper in the country during the past century, and you will find a carefully phrased calling out of someone, or some entity, for doing almost anything that harms or violates the rights of citizens.

My first thought 25 years ago was that my initial editorials needed to be along the lines of fire and brimstone — flame-throwing articulations of the newspaper’s view of a great injustice. They needed, I thought, to match the intensity of my editor. When I sat down to tap out those first keyboarded creations, that was just how I approached them. As if the intended target of said editorial was a hideous criminal or a political nightmare that had been eagerly fleecing the public.

The first attempt completely missed the mark and promptly landed in the editorial wastebasket. My next draft was hand delivered to me by my editor. His red pen had bled all over it. Complete paragraphs were crossed out. Others had few remaining words left in them.

That’s when I experienced a completely different side of that editor. The memory of the quiet discussion that followed has been swirling in my mind for several weeks. With sage advice, this editor counseled me, saying that strongly worded editorials were natural. Editorials that attacked an individual, assaulted their character and erased any chance for them to retain any dignity, were inappropriate, unacceptable and would not appear in his paper.

That day, fearful I’d never write another editorial, I came to realize that elected officials, community leaders and editorial writers, are all human. The one common denominator: none of them are perfect and none of them are free of sin. Most of them are well intentioned in their service and don’t, in a premeditated manner, set out to hurt anyone.

My editor said the best approach is to identify an issue, present an argument outlining why the matter was handled incorrectly and, in conclusion whenever possible, suggest a solution.

Spin the calendar forward 20-plus years and I find myself wrestling with an issue. Newspapers proudly stand by, defend and protect the First Amendment. We want people to have an outlet to raise their voice and be heard without fear of retribution.

In these days of electronic media, Facebook and a newspaper’s website, the industry has had to develop policies to address online comments that cross invisible lines of decency.

I’m not wrestling with that issue at the moment. My position on it is abundantly clear. We are a small community newspaper that belongs to families. Some content simply doesn’t qualify. As a result, very occasionally I’ve removed inappropriate posts.

Letters to the editor, however, have been a bit difficult for me to swallow on several different occasions during the past couple of years. To me, the letters are intended to give citizens a voice and an opportunity to question things that are happening around them. These letters should also be a venue for celebrating the good in people, or our communities.

In general, we have very few letter writers, unless there’s a controversial issue or an election at hand. As publisher, I’d like to have more letters on a regular basis that are written because the author witnessed something worth writing about.

Imagine if the majority of these letters were about something positive, rather than a regular degrading of what is currently happening in our communities.

Would people read them? I wonder.

I’m far from naïve on this subject. Society has changed so much that the most popular content in the national news media is sensational, or gossip driven, or baseball-bat-swinging assaults on government or individual leaders.

Government, large and small, is often deserving of a calling out. Angry venomous assaults, shouldn’t be the norm. Sadly it’s what sells and has become commonplace.

Commentary in this newspaper has been heavy handed at times. Strongly worded on other occasions. In my opinion, I try to avoid character assassination. I’m sure there are some who would disagree. That’s the beauty of us all being entitled to our opinions.

My current dilemma stems from letters that border on being hateful, emotional rants that seldom if ever offer solutions, or an offer by the authors to get involved and help find other alternatives.

If you take anything away from this, please let it be this: If you are frustrated, disappointed or angry over the decisions or actions of local elected leaders and community volunteers, your opinions are valued.

Just take a step back in the writing process and ask yourself if you’ve factually identified the issue; explained why you are opposed or uncomfortable with the direction; made an effort to recommend a solution and above all, have been careful to not damage someone’s dignity.

If you don’t, your letter is at risk of falling into my editorial wastebasket.