IT IS going to be interesting to note how viable the Letters to the Editor section is going to be now that I've called a halt on letters on the Archer St cemetery gates while I do some research on the topic.
The thing is, I would really like the letters to the editor to have a vibrancy and a content that extends beyond one topic. Editors keep an eye out on the letters, for potential stories, and the cemetery gates is worthy of that. You could liken it to a letter campaign that has gained some traction in the newsroom. But, in the meantime, I would hope that there's more opinions out there, on any topic.
The other letters I've had to say no to are politicking letters from candidates in the local body elections. I have asked - repeatedly - that candidates should make an effort to make themselves newsworthy, but the letters to the editor is not the forum for that. If I open that door, I'd be swamped with them. I do allow candidates to "react" to a direct question or criticism, or even an inference, from either a letter or a news story. That is a basic right-of-reply concept.
But I would much rather candidates raised an issue with us directly, allowing us to seek more information and balance as part of a news story.
The letters to the editor is also the public's opportunity to ask your own questions of candidates. We can publish their replies.