» Early reaction to 250-word letter limit is … :: The Editor’s Blog

Jun302009

Early reaction to 250-word letter limit is …

Filed under Uncategorized by nick pappas at 7:31 pm

I must say the initial response to my decision to begin imposing a 250-word limit on letters to the editor this week has been pretty reasonable.

Other than the two comments at the end of the original blog item, “Readers say tighten up on those verbose letters,” I’ve heard from a handful of people informally.

First, I was contacted by a member of our Reader Advisory Network on Sunday night who complained he couldn’t get his comments through our e-mail filter. He later changed the word in question – no, I don’t know what it is – and posted his comments to the blog.

Then, Nashua Alderman-at-Large Fred Teeboom pointed out how difficult it was to trim what ordinarily would have been a 400-word letter down to the new 250-word limit.

“I took you at your newly-directed 250-word challenge,” he wrote early Sunday evening. “After considerable re-writing and more re-writing and then more editing, I managed to get the attached letter down to exactly 250 words, while maintaining my central theme.”

Sheesh, talk about taking me literally. Fred’s letter, “Overriding cap wrong for tax reimbursements,” was published today.

On Monday, I heard from Ed Graves, of Nashua, an occasional letter writer, who suggested giving writers of well-written longer letters a second chance rather than rejecting them outright.

Ed also pointed out that it could be a challenge to rebut a much-longer guest commentary if limited to 250 words before closing with this: “Thank you and I appreciate the indulgence of letting me exceed the desired letter length in the past!”

You’re welcome, Ed.

State Rep. Jordan Ulery, R-Hudson, weighed in with what he labeled a “concern, not a complaint.”

“While I do understand the need to limit letters, the issues are so widespread, so deep, that the limit regional papers are imposing does not, in my opinion, serve the public well,” he wrote in an e-mail to me.

“A 300, 250 or 200 word limit reduces profound topics to mere sound bites. That is not fair to the reader, the writer or the topic. There are valid arguments on both sides of an issue that can and should be made public. Then again, being forced to be concise has its advantages.”

Finally, we received our first letter to the editor in response to my Sunday piece earlier today from Janet Ebsen, of Nashua; it’s scheduled to run in Wednesday’s paper, so check it out there or online tomorrow morning.