The editor is writing this letter regarding letters to the editor.One of The Oregonian/OregonLive’s most popular features is the letters section. How can a reader, however, get their letter published? Out of the dozens that are submitted every week, how do we make our selection?
Opinion Editor Helen Jung is in charge of letters since they contain opinions.For the only purpose of verification, Jung takes into account published letters that are sent by email (not as attachments) and include the recipient’s first and last name, phone number, and residential address.
They should be sent to [email protected] and should not exceed 250 words (the majority of writing programs have a word count feature). Selected letters appear on OregonLive over the next few days after appearing in print versions on Wednesday and Sunday.
Local content is favored in this regard. Jung recently wrote to a reader, “We prefer letters on state and local issues, because that’s our core focus as a newspaper.” We do publish letters on both domestic and international subjects, and we printed a lot of national letters during the election. While there are plenty of venues to read comments about the Gaza War, there aren’t many that offer viewpoints on how Portland’s first ranked-choice election went or how to remedy the state’s persistent shortcomings in safeguarding foster children.
Additionally, letters having a clear point supported by a well-reasoned argument tend to be the best.
According to Jung, we seek out letters that offer viewpoints without being unduly provocative. Although everyone has the right to their own ideas, we prefer to publish messages that shed light on the issue rather than stoke it.
Within a four-month period, we usually don’t publish more than one letter from the same author.
The entire name and city of residence of the author are provided with the letter. An editor confirms that the writer is who they claim to be (many newspapers have been deceived over the years by letters sent in under a false identity or, worse, someone else’s name).
Other fact-checking is done in the opinion section. The author may be asked by an editor to substantiate factual comments that are repeated throughout the letter.
If the letter writer has a pertinent link to the topic they are writing about, we also want to let readers know. If the letter is from, example, a U.S. senator, this is simple, but we also want to reveal if the writer is the leader of a neighborhood association that is promoting a position or a board member of a nonprofit organization that works on the letter’s subject.
Sometimes we simply want to let people know if their name sounds familiar (for example, “So-and-so is a former Washington County commissioner”). For readers who might be wondering if the name is that of the same individual, that is the solution.
Letters criticizing our news coverage are welcome, but if someone questions the truth of the story, they will be sent to the newsroom (really, me) to address the issue. If we make a mistake, we want to fix it. If we stated one thing and a published letter stated another, the accuracy issue would remain unanswered and a reader would become confused.
Bias, or more generally, a lack of balance, is a frequent grievance we receive regarding letters. This is a recent accusation of bias:
On Sunday, December 1, the Oregonian reached a journalistic low never seen before in Letters to the Editor. One reader wrote, “Oregon needs protection from Trump.” Does the letter’s author have the right to express an opinion? Definitely. Is it legal for The Oregonian to print that viewpoint? Definitely.
Here’s where I differ, though. Not every letter that is sent is published; you and your team decide which ones to publish. The bulk of the letters are liberal, which makes your prejudice clear. It would be good to see more balanced reporting.
Additionally, he protested that the letter should not have been published since, in his opinion, it might have incited violence and extremism.
I don’t believe the letter went too far. Letters advocating violence are not published by us.
Although the opinion section aims for balance in the letters, according to Jung, it will never be a perfect one-for-one match. To begin with, we mostly depend on letters that are sent to us. We cannot publish letters that we do not receive, therefore we are at the mercy of those who choose to write.
Portland is known for being a liberal city, and our inbox definitely reflects that. About 253,000 Democrats, 150,000 unaffiliated voters, and only 35,000 Republicans were registered in Portland as of the fall of 2024.
Naturally, we get letters from all across the state and the metro region, but they don’t really level the playing field. (Oregon also leans left overall because of the greater number of liberal communities in the Willamette Valley.)
As I have already stated, publishing viewpoints that you disagree with does not constitute bias. I would have bias concerns if we deliberately chose just letters that supported a particular subject or candidate while consistently rejecting equally strong letters on the opposing side. However, that is not the case.
We strive to discover or solicit letters to balance out the comments, and we publish the finest ones in roughly proportion to the views we receive.
I’ve asked a number of right-leaning readers over the years if they would like their remarks to be treated as a letter to the editor with their identity included. A few of them said no, citing fear of harassment or even retaliation from left-wing political fanatics.
We receive significantly more anti-Trump letters than pro-Trump ones for all of these reasons.
In order to give people the last say, we also search for letters that could disagree with the stance taken by our editorial board on the subjects.
Ultimately, I believe it is neither possible nor desirable to have an opinion section that everyone agrees with.
Reach me at oregonian.com/attbottomly.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
