The politics of letters to the editor

Consider this whole column an aside, though by reading the other story on this page, you’ll realize the political scene isn’t as quiet as it might seem.

There’s lots going on behind the scenes, mainly money-related, as candidates and potential candidates figure out their runs for office. Expect spirited campaigns in Costa Mesa (that’s become a given) as well as the Balboa Peninsula and Corona del Mar districts in Newport Beach.

I want to talk about a different behind-the-scenes subject: The Pilot’s Forum page and our policy (we do have one) on running responses and letters.

The reason for bringing this up now, when most of us are focused far more on holiday shopping than delving deeply into the paper? Immigration.

For two weeks, the bulk of our Forum pages have been dedicated to Costa Mesa’s plan to police immigration laws. (Today’s includes one letter on that subject, and Wednesday’s was filled with shorter responses.) It was one of those subjects that generates voluminous material (as has the proposed Newport Beach city hall project), making editors here forget the times when filling those pages can get a little tougher.

A conversation I had last week with a community leader reminded me of an important point: Readers can’t know how what we print reflects what we’ve received. If we run five letters against Costa Mesa’s immigration plan and three for it, does that mirror the number of responses we’ve gotten?

Mostly it does, but for a different reason than at much bigger papers. Unlike those papers, we run the vast majority of comments that come into us, either via e-mail (the best way, by the way), phone or on paper. It is the rare piece that doesn’t get into our paper, instead of the other way around. So we don’t have to pick a representative number because we get most of them in.

What you see is what we got, in other words.

Do we get everything in? No. But the reasons for this aren’t nefarious, partisan or even political.

If a letter doesn’t run, chances are it was because of one of the following reasons:

* It was offensive, vulgar or otherwise unprintable. But even then, we try to edit out the parts that can’t be printed and get the basic ideas in. (We did that with several letters regarding the immigration issue.)

* The writer has made the point, in one form or another, over and over and over again. We aren’t going to run something that doesn’t contribute a new perspective to an issue, either by being a new idea or just from a new writer.

* The writer has run recently. We have a few fairly consistent contributors, and, I’m happy to say, it appears we have has a few new ones in recent weeks. But we can’t have the same names in the paper all the time.

* It’s too long. This doesn’t always stop us, but usually we only hand over bottles of ink to community leaders.

* It’s too short. This happens mostly in response to our questions. If a reader calls in says nothing beyond, “Yes,” or “I agree” or “I disagree,” it drops to the bottom of the barrel. So if you want to get your response in, provide a little bit of why you feel a certain way.

Keep in mind, we’re in the process of expanding and changing the Forum pages. We’ve started the Copilot feature, giving critics of the paper a chance to have a platform (feel free to chime back in, those who’ve been invited), and will be starting several others in 2006. We’re even looking at ways, using our website in particular, to provide a more comprehensive sense of what the response to questions has been.

Stay tuned for that. And do keep writing.

* S.J. CAHN is the editor. He may be reached at (714) 966-4607 or by e-mail at s.j.cahn@latimes.com.

20051222ipny9okn(LA)