Letters can be edited, but care is taken not to distort the message

A story is told — it is actually true — of an American senator who was so annoyed that his letter to the editor was edited down that he took out a full-page advertisement to air his grievances.

But a good newspaper will always edit what it publishes regardless of who the writer is. What every letter writer, though, expects is that the editor will not distort the meaning of the letter in the process of editing.

Letters to the editor are important to readers and to those who write them. Some readers turn to the letters page before reading anything else.

They do so because they want to read something that has not been mediated by journalists — something straight from the heart. Letters to the editor are like a breath of fresh air.

Many letters to the editor have credibility and authority because they are written by ordinary citizens and they often provide interesting and useful commentary or information.

And many readers like to write letters to the editor because they want to have a voice and influence public opinion.

A good newspaper lets letter writers have their say without let or hindrance. It allows them to debate issues and express their viewpoints even if those opinions are contrary to its editorial stand.

However, all good newspapers, including NMG publications, edit letters for space, style, grammar, and issues of clarity. Letters may also be edited for legal considerations.

Most newspapers limit the length of letters to ensure that as many voices as possible get into the letters page.

The New York Times, for example, limits the length of letters to 150 words while The Times of London limits them to 250 words.

The Daily Nation welcomes “brief letters” without giving an exact word count. Some newspaper organisations, however, publish the full text of most reader letters in special “Letters to the Editor” blogs.

These include The Economist and The Australian. 

A good newspaper allows letters to the editor to run without unnecessary editing and seeks to keep the heart of the message intact and to ensure that nothing vital to the meaning intended by the writer is lost.

But copy editors sometimes make mistakes, especially when faced with long-winded letters or letters they fail to fully understand.

WATERED DOWN

I have had several cases of letter writers who have complained that their letters have been over-edited, re-written, or so distorted that they no longer recognised them. 

This week I dealt with such a case. Michael Hatego wrote a 207-word letter.  The main message of the letter was: Let us limit the term of office for the President to 10 years to avoid contentious elections in which the incumbent seeks to be re-elected or to influence his succession.

The Sunday Nation published an edited version of the letter on June 12. The main message of the published letter was: Incumbents cause instability in Africa because they rig elections.

That message was not in the original letter. Mr Hatego was shocked and angry when he saw the letter in print bearing his name.

“I am appalled. I must be the joke of those who know me. I take a sabbatical in absolute shame,” he told me.

The published letter also contained other messages not in the original one. For example, the following words were not present in the original letter: “And the incumbents are always the cause of instabilities in most Africa countries after every election because they ensure they retain their seats even if it means stuffing ballots.”

So what went wrong? I can only guess. The letter was handled by a copy editor who either did not understand it or consciously or unconsciously edited it in such a way that it reflected his or her views. 

The copy editor literally put words in Mr Hatego’s mouth. Sunday Nation Managing Editor Eric Obino concurred and decided, as amends, to publish Mr Hatego’s original letter in full this coming Sunday.

Send your complaints to [email protected]. Mobile 0721989264