Letters worth trashing

Editorial

An accepted part of any campaign of advocacy, indeed an element that is expectd and even required in this age, is that of letter-writing. Newspapers and electronic media have come to expect being the repository of hundreds of notes of accollades, complaints, accusations and insults on any given subject.

The rule of thumb when writing a letter is usually to be concise and clear when delivering one's message or opinion. Even more important, though, is the tone with which a letter is written and the respect given, or not, to the intended recipient. There's nothing that can turn an editor's ears deaf and eyes blind faster than a writer who presumes that insults and ad-hominem remarks will persuade an audience.

In a recent letter-writing campaign, the object of criticism was a National Geographic article that painted Israel in an extremely negative light. The letters that were directed to the editor, and that subsequently made their rounds through e-mail, variously referred to the content as false drivel, lazy, verging on the obscene and nausiating. There was mention of "editorial blindness" and the expected "you call yourself an editor" remark. The tone of these letters was sarcastic to say the least and disrepectful of a person trying their best to do their job.

If one thinks of the way in which people would prefer to be addressed and how easily acerbity and caustic accusations can turn off a listener, it is easy to see that these letters are not only self-defeating, but do more harm than good to the pro-Israel cause.

Considering that such editors likely have to read dozens of letters daily, the chance that they will stop and respond to one that calls the content of their publication "nauseating" is pretty slim. In the end, such missives are probably trashed without even being read through. And well they should be.

^TOP