16 comments

• 

  Miriam Gillitt Winer

  1 year ago

  There are so many candidates running, and there are so many people wanting to push a certain candidate, that unless the letter is a constructive analysis of a problem, rather than a puff piece, I would either not publish it at all or relegate it to the Sunday B3 page. Letters that seems to be generated by campaigns should not be published at all.

  
  

  I really am not swayed by what my neighbors feel about a candidate, living here in NH, I have wonderful opportunities to meet them personally and make up my own mind.

  
  

  However, a letter that deals with genuine problems, offers non-canned solutions and in passing, mentions a candidate, would be acceptable to put on the week-day Letters page. A reasoned, informative letter can change opinions, provided it is grounded in fact. An "I'm for X too" will not.

  reply
• 

  Rich

  1 year ago

  I don't think you should publish every letter. In some cases they are simple CC campaigns or the like, which are merely marketing by the campaigns. I do think you should print LTE highlighting candidates. Prefrence should be given to locality, clarity and having something real to say about the candidate. If you're worried about balance try to match up a pro- and con- letter (if enough arrive). I'd also give preference to the second tier candidates, but that's just me.

  
  

  I think the reason why you may be getting so many letters is the generally poor coverage of the candidates by the mainstream media, particularly of the non-frontrunners (who quite frankly are the only interesting ones).

  
  

  I hear about and go to lots of events which never get any mention in the paper. Learn things about candidates I never read in the paper. And ask questions on topics I never read in the paper. I say if you want better letters, provide better coverage.

  reply
• 

  Richard Obin

  1 year ago

  I like your option #3 but would also suggest that you add a comment that X amount of very similar letters were received in the past week. If space allows you could also add the names of those who submitted letters of the same ilk. Obviously these people subscribe to political email lists and may not even be reading the whole message and just forwarding it along because they trust the source.

  reply
• 

  Bob Ziegel

  1 year ago

  Since they is no easy way to analyze sources of such letters, why not simply confine the subject matter to issues important to readers.
  
  It is the responsability of the candidates and their campaigns to undestand where the voters stand on issues, and which issues are most important to them.
  
  
  Valuable ink, paper and space should be devoted to issues, not citizen endorsements of candidates.
  

  reply
• 

  Peggy L. Trivilino

  1 year ago

  All things considered, I'd prefer to see these letters not published at all, given the fact that they are, ultimately, expressions of subjective personal opinion regarding a particular candidate.

  
  

  I'd like to see the limited space available for LTE devoted to readers' viewpoints and information sharing which discuss issues of general interest concerning state, regional, and local matters.

  reply
• 

  bobsr

  1 year ago

  We live in the LIVE FREE OR DIE STATE. All citizens have an OBLIGATION to learn about the candidates and make decisions based on facts. With our NH Primary System, we can meet and greet all the candidates, ask questions, ascertain the "color of their jib," and make our decisions. The same applies to local candidates.
  
  No thinking person needs or reads "letters to the editor" that are nothing more than spam emails sent by paid campaign workers or volunteers, many from out of state. We can trust you to edit these, Mr. Editor, and find the few salient letters that have something new or important to say.
  
  
  Reduce the letters and add space in the paper to give us facts based on your own interviews and stories written with, as Sgt. Jack Friday used to say, "The FACTS, Ma'm, just the FACTS.
  

  reply
• 

  A Wiltonian

  1 year ago

  I can appreciate your desire to have a policy that can be consistently, fairly and efficiently applied.
  
  Here's an idea:
  
  
  1) Discard letters whose authors are from outside the Telegraph's circulation area.
  
  
  2) Print those letters that you, in your editorial judgment, contribute to the discussion.
  
  
  3) Publish on the web site all letters of local concern, when their authorship can be verified.
  
  
  4) Print, once a week or so, the week's roster of letter writers and candidates they supported (one author and one candidate for each letter.
  
  
  In this way you would distill the news value of a support letter down to the essential point: an endorsement from someone you might know. People could feel that their opinion counts. If a reader wants to see more, they can go to the web -- where there's never a problem trying to fit all the news that's fit to print.
  

  reply
• 

  Bill Hooley

  1 year ago

  Have 2 sections - one for regular letters and one for presidential.

  reply
• 

  John Weber

  1 year ago

  In general, I don't find letters containing personal endorsements or rejection of a candidate interesting or compelling. I wouldn't mind the policy of the paper being to never publish personal endorsement letters. Of course, this would call into question why some people's endorsements would be judged worthy for printing while letters are banned. For example, why should the editors of the newspaper be able to come out with a candidate endorsement if reader letters are banned? How about when major public figures endorse a candidate and its reported as news?

  reply
• 

  Michael Halter

  1 year ago

  While I am very interested in what the voice of the community has to say about candidates for our local elections, I don't feel the same importance applies for national elections.

  
  

  Personally, I believe the coverage The Telegraph provides on the candidates in general, their activity in the region and the results of the various debates is a better tool for me to use than a barrage of "white noise" letters.

  
  

  Additionally, I find the "letters to the editor" an informative view of community feelings about many situations that I might not otherwise be aware of. Please do not dilute this resource with suspect citizen endorsements.

  
  

  Therefore... I'm advocating solution #4 but can easily live with #3.

  reply
• 

  Ray G.

  1 year ago

  I vote for option 3, since it is specific campaign strategy for candidates to encourage supporters and volunteers to submit letters to the editor. A representative sampling of the best of these letters should be put in a special spot weekly, thereby not drowning out the other letters regarding other state and local issues. The letters are usually written by genuine supporters, not the campaign strategists, and should get a showing.

  
  

  I would add that the positive ones should get more weight than those that put down the opponents.

  reply
• 

  Lynn Goldberg

  1 year ago

  Option 3 seems to be a fair solution of the ones enumerated. Other ideas for option 5: A) Print letters from regular SUBSCRIBERS to the Telegraph only; this supports the goal of developing a partnership between the publisher and the actual readers, and prevents the flood of campaign-inspired letters that are "canned". B) Restrict the length of candidate letters to a VERY short 50 words or so. Toss the ones that are not in compliance, which will also weed out the cut-and-paste variety. I agree with those who prefer the regular LTE section be devoted to local issues of interest.

  reply
• 

  NH

  1 year ago

  I say, don't print any of them, since no one reads your paper anyway...

  reply
• 

  bill olender

  1 year ago

  Option 3 looks good. Anyone who thinks that local issues should take precedence over national ones in this environment needs some serious education. It is obvious from the sheer volume of primary-related letters and the general interest in the NH Primary that my opinion prevails.

  reply
• 

  bill olender

  1 year ago

  Option 3 looks good. Anyone who thinks that local issues should take precedence over national ones in this environment needs some serious education. It is obvious from the sheer volume of primary-related letters and the general interest in the NH Primary that my opinion prevails.

  reply
• 

  Grant J Price

  1 year ago

  God created each one of us in the Spirit, and I know that He loves each one of us. He hates the evil we do.
  
  Having kept our first estate in Heaven and having learned all that we could there, God seen our need to learn and grow in truths. It was time for us to learn about pain, sorrow, grief, and death. we are know being tested to see if we will or will not keep all of His Commandments.
  

  
  

  Jesus Christ the Son of God build this earth which we stand upon that these things and much more could be accomplished in our lives.

  
  

  A veil of forgetfulness was put over our remembrances of our previous life.

  
  

  While here on earth we learn that doing evil brings pain in our lives. To serve God and His children brings happiness and peace of Mind.

  
  

  We learn that God does answer our prayers. If we ask amiss, there is stupor of thought. He is our Father so in our prayers He wants us to say, “Our Father in Heaven”, thank Him for His and His Exalted Son Jesus Christ blessings, ask for that which we stand in need of, and close in the name of “Jesus Christ amen”.

  
  

  I know that God and His Son hate abortions, same sex marriage, pornography and all other evils of the world. There would be no war now if each one of us were striving to keep all of God’s commandments.

  
  

  Grant J Price
  
  2314 S 450 W
  
  
  Perry, Utah 84302
  
  
  USA
  
  
  435-723-8779
  
  
  Grant5606@comcast.net
  

  reply