Got a really nice letter to the editor this week. It was well written, to the point and posited some timely thoughts that would be well worth sharing.
It appeared to be in a woman’s handwriting but I couldn’t be sure because it was only signed with a letter and a surname. A surname I had never heard before.
The policy at this paper for the past almost-five decades is that all letters to the editor must be signed. Without a signature, the letter won’t be published.
And I normally check the validity of the signature but I was unable to verify that the partial signature on the letter was legitimate.
So, despite the fact that I agreed with the writer’s opinion, agreed with her thoughts and felt it was a letter worth reading for all our readers, I stuck to my policy and the letter wasn’t printed.
I wish our readers could have had the opportunity to read it. Those out there that are endlessly arguing about things would be well-served to heed the writer’s words.
I told the good wife that it was so good a letter that I thought I’d make an exception to my policy and publish it anyway.
But that wouldn’t be fair, because I would never run an unsigned letter containing an opinion I strongly disagreed with, so I had to treat this letter writer the same way. The policy stands for all writers.
But if, in the next week, she comes forward with information to verify her identity, then you’ll get to read it next week. I hope she does.