After last year’s town election season, during which we published a highly personal attack on a candidate for selectman, the Press adopted a “no negative letters” policy. We thought we were taking a common-sense position that would be easy to implement and promote more civil debate on our pages. When a letter landed in our inbox two weeks ago that we deemed negative, we politely rejected it.
If we had stuck with our stated policy, we perhaps might have been guilty of a “foolish consistency,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson once warned, but at least we would have been consistent. Instead, we wavered, and last week published two letters—after toning them down—that clearly violated our rule.
Since then we have heard objections from all sides. Some readers have complained that by shutting off criticism of candidates we are stifling legitimate debate, caving to some dark political force. Others have accused us of showing preference for a certain candidate in rejecting the first letter. But any way you look at it, by not sticking with our stated policy until after the current election, we erred.
Once the ballots have been counted next week, we will be reevaluating our handling of letters to the editor. Meantime, we invite your feedback. But please, nothing personal.
