Eight newsroom assistants gathered at the front of the newsroom Tuesday, green rubber gloves in hand, reviewing the latest safety tips for handling mail.
That same morning The Arizona Daily Star told its Tucson readers that it would not accept mailed letters to the editor any more, asking readers instead to contribute only by e-mail or fax. Safety concerns forced the new policy. I hope it doesn’t happen here.
I receive a lot of anonymous mail. For some readers it’s the only safe way to complain. But now it’s a way to deliver terrorism, so new policies prevail. The newspaper’s central mailroom will search for odd-looking mail, including those pieces with no return addresses, as a safety precaution.
Anonymity is one way to deliver news tips or poke fun. Of course, it also can spread hate. Now we are all too aware it’s also a way to deliver terrorism. Ignoring anonymous mail cuts down on the paper’s access to dissenters.
Writers of letters to the editor need to remember to include a return address on the outside of envelopes, so they won’t be put aside during security reviews. Letters are the newspaper’s way to offer a community conversation, and any limits to letter delivery potentially cut into that conversation.
Phone conversations with readers last week shifted in tone from mostly praises for thorough terrorism coverage to more criticism. Some callers said they do not want to read opinion pieces that oppose the Bush administration or do not want to read of others who oppose the U.S. policies.
A Monday front page story, “Anger takes Americans by surprise” outlining issues that have fueled anti-American sentiments elsewhere, drew both criticism and praise.
Said a critic: “This is demoralizing. Most of us are behind our president. We’re in it for the long haul. Please support our president and our military.”
Said a fan: “Excellent, excellent article. It opens up your eyes to a new way of thinking.”
Several callers have said that they want the paper to be pro-Bush, pro-military and pro-military secrecy. The paper, they say, might imperil military personnel or families by printing their names.
Other callers say the paper isn’t going far enough in exposing past American policies that led to anger against America. They want more questioning of military policy and more critical analysis pieces.
The comments show a changing mood for readers. The shock of Sept. 11 is wearing off. Anger is building. This is familiar turf: readers who disapprove of all but their own point of view.
The jabs are flying again. Maybe boxing gloves, rather than rubber gloves, are better suited for my desktop.
