You'd think there'd be nothing easier than pasting together a bunch of letters and replies. After all, most of the copy is turned out by you folks. Those of us who craft readable sentences for a living are getting mostly a free ride. Unfortunately, life is never as simple as it seems.

First, we have an obligation to filter letters for suitability. Robert Ward and I both tend to be generous in this regard. We feel that any reader who writes at all coherently on a topic relevant to this magazine deserves to be heard. We draw the line, however, at out and out libel or nonsense. CUJ does not have an obligation to be a soapbox for all comers.

Then we owe it to our letter writers to present what they say in a fair light. Believe it or not, that means editing what they say. Errors of grammar and punctuation loom larger when typeset than when dashed off as a quick note or e-mail message. We often must trim long letters, or letters accompanied by lots of code. Partly that's for space considerations and partly that's to help focus the message for our readers. It is generally my job to ensure that any edits do not alter meaning or tone for the worse.

We have a further obligation to our letter writers to respond to them appropriately. Again, Robert and I feel that most letters deserve some sort of answer. I am irrepressibly flip at times, but I try hard not to be cruel. It's distressingly easy to be offhand or snotty, particularly in answering the more naive letters. (They deserve the most careful attention.)

Finally, we have a major obligation to our readers when letter writers make representations that can be damaging to others. In particular, CUJ tries hard to be fair to vendors, because they are so vulnerable to offhand attacks. The staff habitually checks out adverse product reviews or negative remarks by letter writers. If the affected vendor persuades us the charges are factually incorrect, we either print the counterclaim or drop the offending words from the outset.

At the very least, it is my obligation in responding to a letter to put harsh statements in perspective. I must call attention to any possible bias, or label a negative statement as just one person's experience, not necessarily substantiated. To say nothing can easily be read as an implicit endorsement.

I committed just such a gaffe recently. A reader wrote to criticize a vendor and suggest that CUJ serve as a forum for similar concerns. My response to the suggestion inadvertently appeared to affirm the criticism. This was a disservice to both our readers and our vendors. However strongly the letter writer felt, the letter presented only one side of the story. By presenting it unadorned, we biased the presentation against the vendor. I apologize.

So you see, it's harder than you might think to present an open forum in a way that is fair to all parties involved. We won't always succeed, but we'll keep trying.

P. J. Plauger
pjp@plauger.com