The extent of reader input at The Leader has been my single biggest surprise. People care what we do here and they don’t mind letting us know what they think. Given the volume it can be challenging to respond, and it’s far too easy to lose something in the mix. But the interaction is a gift, and we try hard. 

Letters to the editor are one of the best-read parts of the newspaper. We get a lot of them, and a significant portion are not for publication. I’m going to focus on input from people who don’t want their names published. And I’ll talk about some ground rules and how corrections and clarifications work. 

The significant majority of interactions with readers are positive. The largest block are people with events and things of interest they feel deserve attention. We aim to include most of them in some form, whether as a calendar item, brief, story, or some combination, so that’s a happy ending.

Some people reach out to tell us we should look into something, sometimes with a sentence or two, other times with great detail and links that help prove their point. On occasion they are happy with coverage and want to say thank you.

But sometimes people reach out because they are mad that we did (or didn’t)  cover a story they think is important, or because we published a letter or column they didn’t like. It could be the opposite, where they think we aren’t including enough input from other perspectives. (To this end we are actively seeking out conservative viewpoints, and even a local columnist.) 

Several folks have reached out to say we shouldn’t include a letter (or cover things) because it involves this or that person, for this or that reason. We don’t publish things based on opinions about character or the right of an individual to speak out. Honestly, we’re surprised anyone thinks the role of the paper is to screen anything in that manner. 

Frankly, most writers are honest about their motivations or interest in a subject. We also give the benefit of the doubt to anyone filing a claim or complaint as having a right to be heard. 

While we make no promises to publish all letters, it is our aim. The biggest challenge is space, which only now is starting to be an issue, thanks to upcoming elections. We limit writers to one letter a month as a rule. Obviously false information, where we draw the line, is actually rare. 

Sometimes a letter writer or contributor demands that their letter  — or even articles — run verbatim. We don’t do that and it’s a very good thing to clear up right away. (The advertising department can facilitate that.) That said, typically letters run exactly as written, aside from minor style changes.

Other times people reach out because they think we’ve made a mistake.  A correction is used to fix a factual error, like the misspelling of a name, an incorrect date, or a detail that is wrong. A clarification aims to explain something that in hindsight is potentially confusing but doesn’t change its core meaning. In both cases, the story stands. A retraction withdraws the story by telling the audience that a factual error exists that undermines the point of the story.  

The practice of promptly admitting when we’re wrong is vastly different from most industries and professions. Imagine the same thing happening in, say, the medical and legal arenas. Most lawyers advise clients at the outset not to admit anything. (Not saying there aren’t good reasons for this, including that the client might not actually be at fault.)

My point is that journalism is different.

We make mistakes, and so too do the people we cover, who sometimes provide us with incorrect information. We correct that, too, depending on the circumstance. One example is where the subject of a story offered up a precise calendar date for the launch of a business decades earlier. They called back after it was published to say it was wrong and they wanted a correction. The date we published was the birth of a grandchild.

We don’t say who is responsible in our corrections and clarifications. We try not to repeat the error unless it doesn’t make sense otherwise.

Some people — including some in the industry — think corrections and clarifications are a bad thing. If there are too many, I agree. But the practice itself is a profoundly important tenet of professional journalism. We stand our ground when called for at The Leader, but if we err, we hope we do it on the side of getting it right.