Letters to the Editor - souped-up version

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


First a little background: In Sweden, there are four national daily papers. The largest (Aftonbladet) has a circulation of nearly 3 million, in a 9-million country. This paper has recently revamped its LTTE section, in two interesting ways.

1. Each day, a reader gets the opportunity to have a professional political speech writer write their letter. Reader supplies info and opinion, writer packages it. This is done with the express purpose of leveling the field - every politician nowadays gets his speech written for him. This makes the letters considerably better.

2. Readers are invited to suggest topics that a named politician/pundit/general VIP is to write about, with a twist. The topic must be contrarian to the whole image of the known person. The readers then choose (by net vote) which suggestion is to be forwarded to the known person. If the VIP declines to write on the topic, or hands in a writing where he tries to twist the topic into something of his own liking, the paper will simply print his picture with a dunce cap Given the circulation of the paper, this is a threat ignored at your own peril. So far, most seem to have opted for the writing. The paper is politically labor, but this does not stop them from forwarding topics which are uncomfortable to the left side of the political spectrum. I like to see those guys being made to flog themselves, and try to get away from it with some semblance of dignity. Some, but not all, manage.

Has this been tried in papers that you read/are aware of? General comments?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Meh...so people are not considered smart enough to write their own jeremiads? What is that, job security for pundits?

Tsk.

[CutLass]

Sounds like a club newsletter, not a published newspaper. Suggest topics and assign a staff member to include it in the next issue.

It could be rather fun to do that. Almost like a true public debate or town meeting. Citizens can select a topic and direct it to the "speaker/writer" of their choice and I am sure you can get some interesting responses. Especially if the rules stipulate, no politicing or hedging the response. Straight up, what's your "opinion" and response to this question, Mr. Head of State, or Justice Supreme, or Chief Exec Big Corp, or Principal Local School.

I would love to hear their responses to questions that typically would not be directed or handled by them. Like ask the Principal for his opinion of the U.S. Military actions in Iraq, or ask the Secretary of State for her opinion on the cuts in spending for the National Endowment for the Arts, etc.

[Epee_Pox]

Sounds dumber than dirt, to me. Both having someone else write the letter for you, and extorting writing from people who probably have better things to do with their time, are just puerile.

[CutLass]

Dumber than dirt. Dumber than dirt?
Nice.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by CutLass

Dumber than dirt. Dumber than dirt?
Nice.

Not his fault. He had a political pundit write it for him.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Meh...so people are not considered smart enough to write their own jeremiads? What is that, job security for pundits?

Tsk.

jeremiad? Shouldn't that be capitalized?

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Not his fault. He had a political pundit write it for him.

blank, blank, blank

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by CutLass

Dumber than dirt. Dumber than dirt?
Nice.

Would you prefer "dumb as a box of hair"?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Meh...so people are not considered smart enough to write their own jeremiads? What is that, job security for pundits?

Tsk.

Sweden is a country where the schools do not have debate teams/clubs, and rethorics (spelling???) is not on the school curriculum. Therefore, the difference between those who have access to a professional writer and those who do not is probably much larger than in the USA. Many lower-level Swdish politicians do not use this advantage, with the result that their speeches would make an extemperanous Bush seem like a true Cicero.

Also, the writing of persuasive texts is a specialist skill - otherwise all politicians would do it themselves. One of those texts was commisioned by a midwife. The gist of her text was that politicians should set aside a bit more money to gynecology departments in hospitals, and above all, stop micromanaging the money that they send that way. I am sure that she knows more about gyn. health care than the great majority of politicians, especially the male ones. Furthermore, in her line of work, the ability to write persuasively is not honed, and one can assume that that talent is not especially sought after in the entrance tests to midwifery education.

I think of it as an example of specialization - midwifes should do midwifery, and professional writers should write. That principle has been instrumental is furthering civilization since we left the hunter-gatherer stadium.

On the job-security angle: The paper is its onw corporation, and if they seem fit to spend their money on pundit fees - who are we to stop them? Are you a shareholder?



Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Not his fault. He had a political pundit write it for him.

Hah!

If I had that kind of money! FYI, I train with an epee blade from 1994.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Svidrigailov]

I think putting a common citizen's thoughts in the words of a proffessional writer is a great idea; it gives the common person the opportunity to "speak" in the voice, tone, and esthetic of someone who has real political power and the clout that goes along with it. Aside from dispelling any myths on the uniqueness and legitimacy of a "political voice," it allows people to easily compare a politician's and a regular citizen's test without the distortions of language.

[Have At You]

The difference between "unskilled" editorial writers vs "professional" ones is more than mere writing style.

Writing a clear editorial is not difficult. You briefly state what the issue is (sometimes by way of an anecdote or analogy, but usually stated directly). Then you state the relevant known facts. Then you state the relevant policy consideration. Then you apply the policy to the facts and draw a conclusion. This is a standard format that works well in all disciplines.

When people are unable to write clearly enough to make their point understood, that usually means not that they don't know how to write effectively, but rather that they themselves don't fully understand their own point. The wonderful thing about writing is that it forces one to clarify one's positions, facts and suppositions.

But clear writing is not what is really important here. The most important elements are the policies and evidence on which a conclusion is based. And the unfortunate fact is that many people cannot put into words what their base principles are, if they even have them. And many people do not have the time or inclination to fully research the facts so they can make an informed opinion.

Because of this, the proposal of having a professional write an editorial for me suggests that I simply provide a conclusion, and someone else applies their own principles and research to make a case for it. Seems intellectually dishonest to me.

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Have At You

But clear writing is not what is really important here. The most important elements are the policies and evidence on which a conclusion is based. And the unfortunate fact is that many people cannot put into words what their base principles are, if they even have them. And many people do not have the time or inclination to fully research the facts so they can make an informed opinion.

Because of this, the proposal of having a professional write an editorial for me suggests that I simply provide a conclusion, and someone else applies their own principles and research to make a case for it. Seems intellectually dishonest to me.

I agree with most of what you say above. But if politicians are not criticized for using speechwriters, why should common citizens? If anything, we should ban spin doctors and speechwriters, not allow them for the more powerful people while denying them to the most vulnerable and defenseless...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

2. Readers are invited to suggest topics that a named politician/pundit/general VIP is to write about, with a twist. The topic must be contrarian to the whole image of the known person.

Of course this would just provide grist for the mill of those spinners who like to take quotes out of context to bash the opposing side ("Look, Planned Parenthood Chief claims that Abortion == Murder!"). Going back to a post by Epeemike81 in a different thread, it's not like people bother going back to original source documentation to get context (or in his example to even check the assertion being made).

-B :)

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

The paper is its onw corporation, and if they seem fit to spend their money on pundit fees - who are we to stop them? Are you a shareholder?

Wait...they have private corporations in socialist paradise of Sweden?

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Svidrigailov

I agree with most of what you say above. But if politicians are not criticized for using speechwriters, why should common citizens? If anything, we should ban spin doctors and speechwriters, not allow them for the more powerful people while denying them to the most vulnerable and defenseless...

You're right, we cannot deny speechwriters to the general public. And because it cannot be denied, it must be provided by the government for those who cannot afford the services themselves.

Which only stands to reason. Government is best suited to speak for those who have no voice, moderate discussion to ensure that nobody is offended, and provide services to the masses.

Therefore I propose the institution of a federal Free Speech Agency, dedicated to propounding and clarifying the views of the citizenry. Ideas that are not first vetted and approved by the agency, of course, would be prohibited from the public domain. Free speech is important, so violators should be punished and rehabilitated to ensure that everyone has their say.

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Wait...they have private corporations in socialist paradise of Sweden?

I'm sure you are aware that Sweden is a democracy (look that word up in a dictionary) and not a socialist state.

And just for general information to you americans with an undefined fear of "communists": Hosting liberal thoughts does not necessarily imply that you are a communist or socialist. It simply means that you do not approve of fascist (ie. right-wing) agendas.


<--- Me, having a truly bad morning today.

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

You're right, we cannot deny speechwriters to the general public. And because it cannot be denied, it must be provided by the government for those who cannot afford the services themselves.

Which only stands to reason. Government is best suited to speak for those who have no voice, moderate discussion to ensure that nobody is offended, and provide services to the masses.

Therefore I propose the institution of a federal Free Speech Agency, dedicated to propounding and clarifying the views of the citizenry. Ideas that are not first vetted and approved by the agency, of course, would be prohibited from the public domain. Free speech is important, so violators should be punished and rehabilitated to ensure that everyone has their say.

It would be a beggining, but even this falls short. A government agency like the one you propose would have to be extended until it harmonizes everybody's manner of speech, dress, and haircut, the words people use, the ideas and values they are taught and their favorite color. If there is ambiguity or confusion in the way people express themselves, present themselves and communicate, citizens wouldn't have freedom of speech because their message would come across as garbled to their peers...

Eventually, the harmonization process would have to "cleanse" people that couldn't be harmonized: for instance, the ones that are too stupid and the ones that are too smart, or the ones too strong or too weak...once we are all mediocre, then surely we will be able to understand each other well, and practice our freedom of speech to our heart's content

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Zilverzmurfen

I'm sure you are aware that Sweden is a democracy (look that word up in a dictionary) and not a socialist state.

And just for general information to you americans with an undefined fear of "communists": Hosting liberal thoughts does not necessarily imply that you are a communist or socialist. It simply means that you do not approve of fascist (ie. right-wing) agendas.


<--- Me, having a truly bad morning today.

Fascism: Power to the group identity. Highly centralized government, the interests of the state outweigh the interests of the individual, individuals can own capital but its use is highly regulated.

Right-wing: Power to the individual. Federalized government, with more powers concentrated at the local level. More government involvement in national defense and free trade/labor, less government involvement in capital. Less social welfare.

Left-wing: Power to the people. Federalized government, with more powers concentrated at the national level. More government involvement in capital and trade/labor protection. More social welfare.

Socialism: Power to the state. Centralized government, which controls capital. Heavy social welfare and trade/labor protection.

Communism: Euphemism for various forms of totalitarian dictatorship.


Americans rightly dislike communism as it has existed in the world. Subjugation of people, destruction of freedom, annihilation of cultures and thriving economies, tyrrany, mass executions, routine political imprisonment, appalling standards of living, routine injustice -- these are what communism has meant.

We're equally opposed to fascism. Don't know why you equate fascism with being right-wing, when most right-wingers would take up arms against anyone attempting to impose fascism. So would most left-wingers, for that matter.

I'd say Sweden falls in the Socialist category, yes?