Doubtless your changed editorial policy in relation to the reams of letters you receive before town elections (see, “If you can’t say something nice…”, April 12, 2013), was prompted by Jonathan Feist’s letter in support of Lucy Wallace—and against the candidacy of Rhonda Sprague—for Board of Selectmen last year.
I’m sorry to see this policy change, for a number of reasons. No good letters section edits out critical commentary, though certain standards of courtesy always apply. Critical thinkers need to hear both positive and negative comments about their choices at the polls in order to sift the facts—as they know them or are learning them—and make decisions. My own thoughts are often more piqued—startled, awakened—by comments contrary to the received wisdom on a certain issue. If you had found the letter perhaps too strong in its expression—which I realize many people did—could you not have edited it or asked the writer to do the same so that the tone was perceived as strong though less personally offensive?
I think the paper will be weaker for your choice. I anticipate some scuttlebutt in response and hope that you at least made your policy change based on careful consideration prompted by the debate of last election season and not because you and the publishers have allowed themselves to be cowed by certain political forces.
Roseanne Saalfield
Woodchuck Hill Road
