The Oakland Press prides itself on being a forum for its readers.

So, we try to run almost all of the letters to the editor that we receive.

As I’ve stated, we publish them on a first-come, first-serve basis. We attempt to get them in as soon as possible but space is limited and so there’s usually a backlog of letters of one or two weeks. Sometimes longer.

We’ll make every effort to get letters to conform to the requirements. The limit is 250 words and so those that are longer will either be trimmed by us or by the author.
But there are some letters that we just must reject, usually because they are too insulting and often blatantly racist.

Generally, letters to the editor must not contain profanity. Just one or two words could be edited out but a letter that is filled with vulgar epithets is not worth the editing effort.

Sometimes letters get too personal. We can sympathy with someone who is going through some difficult times but repeating their troubles in a letter to the editor isn’t quite appropriate. For example, we get letters from people being evicted or who are having tough financial or health problems. We sympathize and, where possible, refer them to other sources, such as social services agencies.

Admittedly, sometimes they tell us their troubles to make a point about an issue or situation. In such cases, we may relent and run that letter. Sometimes it’s obvious and the letter is just too personal. Sometimes it’s a judgment call.

Occasionally, the letter is not just too long but ridiculously extensive. Letters must be around 250 words and the guest opinions can go 550 to 660. Guest opinions, by the way, are restricted to those who have some expertise on a topic. And we’ve also allowed politicians to write guest opinions by virtue of their positions. But some letters are literally a 1000 words or more.

We also turn down letters that make false accusations or use incorrect facts to make a point.

Considerable effort is made to work with a letter writer to make his opinion piece conform to the policy and ultimately get printed.

But sometimes, even with a concerted, substantial effort, the letters must be rejected.

The Oakland Press Forum Section appears weekly on Sundays.

There’s a reason it consists of four pages while during the rest of the week, we have only one Opinion Page each day.

Sunday is The Oakland Press’ largest circulation day and through the Forum Section, we can provide more, balanced letters and guest opinions to our readers.

Notice I stress “balanced.” As I mentioned Monday, the Opinion Page strives to provide a balance of opinions — conservative and liberal. From an editorial standpoint, we are probably more conservative, although many readers will contest that statement.

But the most important thing is to try to provide a balance of opinions in the Forum section. For example, normally on Page 3 we run columns from Walter Williams, a conservative, and Leonard Pitts Jr., a liberal. It would be fantastic if they each wrote on the same topic but that’s almost impossible to coordinate. However, the two definitely support and express often diametrically opposite views.

As far as letters to the editor go, if we have them, we will run those with differing opinions on the same topics in the same section. Normally, however, getting such balance in one edition is difficult because we run the letters as they come in. What normally happens is several letters may support a particular topic and then we’ll get several opinions opposing that same subject. Consequently, the balance may not come in that section but should come over a period of time and editions.

The same is true for the Forum Front page feature, which can come from any number of sources — The Associated Press, the Cato Institute or other news syndicates. Here too, the balance may not come within a particularly section but over a week or two.

The balance isn’t perfect or equal. Some times we run more conservative pieces, sometimes more liberal.

You can debate which we run more of but the important fact is we do try to provide a balance.

This past Sunday in our Forum Section, the editorial was a very upbeat piece on Oakland County Community College.

We’ve editorialized about the educational institution a number of times over the past few years and the reason is because it deserves the credit.

This particularly time it appeared in our Forum Section, which is four pages of opinions as opposed to the one page every other day of the week. I’ll discuss the Forum Section in a little more detail on Wednesday but what I want point out now is that the Sunday editorial was very upbeat — and rightfully so for OCC. But I’ve received comments from many people who seem to think that editorials must always take a stance and should be about much more serious topics. Well, while I respect their opinions, I, along with the Editorial Board, must disagree.

Especially for The Oakland Press, we like to give credit where credit is due. So occasionally we will run an editorial that basically praises the action of someone or group as opposed to just criticizing them.

It’s not necessarily a unique concept but it is one we like. Certainly, there are many serious topics that we could discuss in an editorial. That’s part of life. But also part of life is a brighter and generally happier or positive side. Everything on the Editorial Page, like in the newspaper, doesn’t have to be negative.

Giving special credit to such well run and managed colleges as OCC gives us a chance to shine a positive light on such institutions. It allows us, basically, to give credit where credit is due.

The upbeat editorials don’t have to be limited to groups or organizations. We frequently spotlight individuals, often elected officials, who have, in the view of the Editorial Board, some special praise. That doesn’t mean they will avoid future criticism.

The positive editorials are example of the balance we try to provide, as a newspaper, on our Opinion Page.

There’s not just bad but also good in our society and in our role as an information source, we take pride in being able to point this out.

I receive frequent requests from those who submit letters and guest opinions to be more flexible with the word limitations. Letters are restricted to 250 words or less and guest opinions must be between 550-600 words.

Limited space is the main reason for the cap on such pieces. But I also get frequent requests from people who would prefer to write a guest opinion as opposed to a letter to the editor.

Again, the reason we limit guest opinions is a lack of space — there’s only so much room on a news page. But in so doing, we also have established a policy of when to approve a guest opinion and when a letter seems most appropriate.

Guest opinions are reserved for people representing a specific group or who might be considered experts on the topic about which they want to write.

For example, a school superintendent would be granted a guest opinion is he wanted to discuss school financing or problems or issues associated with his school system. He would be considered an expert because of his high position in the district.
Likewise, we might grant a guest opinion to a financial expert talking about retirement funds or a Congressman or state representative talking about a bill or pending legislation.
Along this line, we generally try to offer our elected officials, from those on the local level to those in state and federal government — a chance to discuss a bill or topic that may be in the news.
Also, we would grant a guest opinion to someone who is an officer in some group or organization or a representative of a group.
Again, because of space limitations, we can only run one guest opinion per month per writer. Also, when politicians are involved, we request that the piece be written solely about a brewing controversy or specific topic. We don’t want the guest opinion to turn into a political campaign piece.
Space is always the reason for any word limitations or for allowing people to write just letters and not guest opinions.
But amid the constant problem of no space, we do try to be fair. So, we try to be as flexible as possible within the perimeters of the Opinion Page.

I’m always open to suggestions — and we would try to institute any “reasonable” ones.

Please, let me know.

There’s been a request to explain the difference between a news story and a blogger.

It should be rather obvious but for those who might be confused, a news story is supposed to be written impartially, giving both sides of an issue and not inserting the opinion or opinions of the writer, normally a reporter.

A blogger is basically an online columnist who is discussing a specific topic but normally from his perspective. He doesn’t have to be impartial or give both side of an issue. His blog is usually his opinion, although he may also utilize facts in expressing it.

This may be a rather simplistic explanation but it’s about as accurate as you’re going to get.

The Internet has opened up so many new realms of possibilities for writing that definitions continue to be given and then revamped.

Because a blog or blogger usually expresses an opinion, readers must be careful not to misinterpret the writing as a news story.

I would think most people looking for basic information on a topic would prefer to just go to a reliable news source.

I would suggest checking out The Oakland Press website for straight news stories. We also have a long list of bloggers if you want to get a different perspective on various topics.

Last week I talked about the controversial new bridge project, which would be a second span connecting the metro area with Canada.

Opposition is coming primarily from one source, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge.
I suggested that The Oakland Press can “follow the money” as to who would oppose the project but until we’ve seen some more evidence that it is wrong for Michigan, we’re going to support it.

One person commented that he or she wanted “to see the money.”
Well, here is some information on how the bridge would be financed and why it is needed.

Probably the biggest selling point for the project is that the Canadian government has offered to pay the $550 million cost of the work. Once constructed, its operation is expected to be supported through tolls.

Discussions on the bridge date back to 2004, when an international partnership conducted a feasibility study and determined there is a need for a second bridge serving the border between Southeastern Michigan and Southwestern Ontario.

The Canada-U.S.-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership consists of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation.
The economic numbers involved are staggering. The bridge would bring an estimated $1.8 billion in investment to the Detroit-Windsor area, create 10,000 construction jobs in Michigan and generate another 30,000 indirect jobs in Michigan and Windsor.
From just the auto industry, every day the combined U.S. and Canadian auto sector sends thousands of cross-border truck shipments and more than $100 million in goods across the border.

These are just some of the numbers that impressed the Editorial Board and prompted it to support the bridge project.

We still haven’t seen any convincing numbers, i.e. reasons to oppose the structure.

When is enough words enough?

That’s been a classic question from students since teachers first gave out written assignments.

Young writers always ask how long do you want this essay to be? Teachers, not to disappoint, usually give them a length — one page, two pages, 1000 words, etc.
However, as you grow older, the answer sometimes changes, particular for young writers who go into journalism.

By college, the stock answer to how long should an essay be is usually “as long as you need to cover the topic.”

Particularly in journalism, brevity is normally preferred. That’s because newspapers have limited space and so the more news they can put in a paper, the better job they do at informing their readers. And to put more news in an edition, stories need to be written as concisely as possible.

In fact, this desire to put as much news in a story with as few words as possible spawned the inverted pyramid style of writing, a basic for newspaper writers. Briefly, this style requires reporters to put the most important information about a topic or an issue at the beginning of a story so that if the piece has to be cut to fit a limited amount of space, it can be cut from the bottom and thus still tell the reader what happened or give him information.

Obviously, there’s much more to be taught about this style of writing, which why journalists normally go to school for four years.

Sooner or later most journalists realize that, under this type of writing style, much can be said in a few words or sentences.

With this as a background, I’m going to respond, generally, to a request from one of my frequent guest opinion writers. She asked if sometimes I could bend the 600 word rule and allow her 700 or 800 words. She seemed to feel 600 words wasn’t enough to make her point.

While sometimes more detail is preferred on a topic, generally, we’ve found that less definitely is more. Sometimes people, particularly letter writers, object to our 250 word limit for them. They say they can’t express what they want to in so few words.
However, experience has taught me that for purposes of trying to make a point, an opinion can easily be expressed in 250 words and more than enough information can supplied to back up a view in a 600-word guest opinion.

To be fair to all of those people who submit letters and guest opinions, I have to take a relatively strong stand on the 250 word and 550-600 word limits, respectively.

Fortunately, the guest writer understood our situation, as do most people who submit pieces to the Opinion Page.

As I mentioned Monday, sometimes we have to repeat a stance on an old issue because it is in the news again.

That was the case with the helmet law editorial Friday and it’s also the case of the international bridge editorial, which we have supported in several editorials over the past few years.

Editorial Board members were pleased to see Gov. Rick Snyder get behind the project. From all of the information we’ve received over the past few years, it appears to be a very beneficial project for not only for Southeast Michigan but for the state.

The current ad campaign against the bridge is well-funded and may be convincing some people to oppose the project. It hasn’t convinced the Editorial Board.

Using the “Follow the Money” theme, the person or persons most hurt or negatively affected by the new bridge would be the Moroun family, owners of the current Ambassador Bridge. The family reportedly is financing the negative ads. We can understand why they would oppose a new bridge because they fear it will affect their profits. However, information we’ve received indicates there is a need for two bridges and so the Moroun would still make money.

For now, based on the reliable information the Editorial Board has received and the rather biased — and understandable so — data from opponents of the new bridge, The Oakland Press continues to support the project.

However, if the board sees impartial evidence that there would be more harm than good to the public, members are not opposed to altering their original position.

Clearly, in this case it’s “Don’t show us the money — we can follow that” but rather “show us the proof.”

The editorial Friday opposing the proposed bill to lift the state helmet requirement for some motorcyclists was not new.

In fact, we’ve written several times in the past about the subject and we’ve opposed it each time.

The Editorial Board decided several years ago that lifting the ban just didn’t make sense. The decision was based on facts we had reviewed about the increase in deaths in states where the helmet law was lifted and also we reviewed statistics on the massive medical costs to treat those cyclists hurt but not killed in an accident.
Some of the information used in the editorial had been used before but it was still pertinent.

The point is that sometimes some version of past editorials must be repeated to remind people — particularly legislators in this case — that what they are doing doesn’t appear to be in the best interest of the general public.

It may be redundant but it’s part of our effort to discuss and give readers our opinions on subjects that are currently in the news.

We do, from time to time, change our stance on a subject, although we don’t like to do it very often. But if, in obtaining new information, we see where our original position on an issue may not be incorrect, then we are not too proud to admit our mistake and change our views.

Remember, we are only as good as our sources and the board is composed of individuals who are human — we’re not perfect.

Sometimes, you don’t hear about a person until he or she dies and there’s an obituary about the individual in the newspaper.

That’s OK. Some people want it that way. They just haven’t made the local news headlines. That doesn’t mean they haven’t lived an exceptional life and don’t deserve some recognition.

I find this to be the case with a number of regular “special” letter writers — special at least to me. I’ve grown to know and respect them. They aren’t public figures but they write regularly and have strong opinions. Yet they understand the basic and critical role of freedom of speech. They respect other people’s opinions, even if they don’t agree them. That’s a trait that is easily expressed but hard for many people to follow.

One of these special individuals is Ed Sornig of Waterford Township. Ed writes regularly — sometimes too regularly, submitting two or three letters a month when he knows the limit is one per month! But he says writing them is a great release for him. So, I don’t mind reading them and letting him decide which one he wants in print.

Recently I received a letter from Ed that unfortunately I can’t print in its entirety because it’s a very personal account of himself. The rule is a bit flexible but basically we accept letters to the editor discussing a specific topic or issue, not a personal accounting of one’s life.

However, Ed has lived a life that many people might envy and most reasonable people should admire.

He and his wife, Betty, have been married for 54 years. They’ve raised 10 children and have 29 grandchildren and one great grandchild.

In recent correspondence, the religiously oriented man expressed pride — as he should — in having had a lifelong relationship in which both partners remained faithful to each other.

The retired autoworker stays active, you might expect, with such a large family but also is an avid reader of The Oakland Press. He wants to stay informed and also enjoys and appreciates, as we’ve mentioned, the opportunity to express his views in a letter to the editor.

Ed has had his illnesses over the years and recently was told by his doctor that his physical condition is failing. The doctor said he didn’t know how long Ed had but that there wasn’t much the physician could do for him.

Ed’s letter to the editor was a personal expression of his views and his life in the wake of this news from his doctor. He also gave some tips for living and some sound advice.

Over-all, the letter illustrates Ed’s buoyant, upbeat and outspoken yet congenial personality and his thankfulness for what he sees as having lived a full life. His letter reads, in part:

“...I always prayed that I would live long enough to see our children’s children. I have been granted that. My life is drawing to an end. I was told by doctors that there is nothing to prolong my life. They don't have a crystal ball to tell me how much longer I'm going to live. So, I'm going to live my life like I always have, knowing each day could be my last. I have had more blessings then I ever dreamed of. It has truly been a wonderful life...
“...My wife and I have laughed and cried together many times. You know that song, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy?” Well, that's how I feel about life. I never saw anyone get better by worrying. Prayer is still the best healer...
“...The question I am always asked it that are the 10 children a “Yours, Mine and Ours situation?’ I say ‘No, they are just ours.’ People then say ‘are you out of your mind?’ I would say, ‘maybe but I'm happy.’
“...My life has been like a roller coaster with it’s ups and downs. But it’s been a great ride!”

Ed, it’s great to know you. Please, keep those letters coming.

It’s time to repeat a message that I’ve tried to get across to many readers over the past few years — there’s a difference between the Opinion Page and the regular news pages.

Many people realize this but unfortunately, many do not.

I constantly get letters saying they don’t like an editorial or a guest opinion or a column on the Opinion and demand that those pieces be written in a more objective, balanced style. Well, that defeats the purpose of an opinion page.

As the name implies, the page is meant to be a forum for people to express their views. They don’t have to give both sides of an issue, although they do have to support their positions with facts.

In a newspaper, balanced, impartially written stories go in the regular news sections. They must be unbiased and written, as much as possible, in a fashion that gives both sides of a story.

That’s not the case on the Opinion Page. Individual articles don’t have to be balanced in the way they are written, they can be prejudiced in favor of a certain position or point of view.

The balance on the Opinion Page comes in trying to run as many diverse opinion pieces as possible. For example, we run liberal columnists Leonard Pitts and E.J. Dionne on the Opinion Page but we try to balance them with commentary from such conservative writers as Charles Krauthammer, Walter Williams, Cal Thomas and Deroy Murdock.

Please remember — you don’t have to agree with every letter or column that appears on the Opinion Page. It’s someone’s opinion. You’re entitled to disagree and urged to write a letter saying so.

Part of the The Oakland Press community service program is providing frequent mentoring sessions to young people.

Students from various schools throughout Oakland County come into the office to learn about newspapers — not only the business aspect of the industry but also from the standpoint of a newspaper’s civic duties.

This past week we had ninth-graders from Pontiac High School and the International Technology Academy in Pontiac.

We discussed two main aspects of journalism.

Obviously, from a pure business standpoint, a newspaper is established to make a profit.

But there’s an equally important role it must play in a free society. A good newspaper is the medium by which people get well-written, unbiased and accurate news stories. A well-informed public is the best way to maintain a nation’s freedoms.

Our Founding Fathers realized this when they put in the First Amendment — not the second or third — freedom of the press. They realized that without a free press providing information to the public, a free nation would not exist for very long.
Adolph Hitler knew the importance of the press and that by controlling it, he could manipulate the people and keep his ruthless power.

Newspapers and other media are by no means perfect, but the good ones are constantly striving to provide information to the public in stories that are accurate, balanced and impartial.

In speaking to the Pontiac students this past week, I instructed the young people to get a good education, set long and short term goals and never stop seeking knowledge. I told them this not only was a requirement for a successful career but it was an obligation as a citizen of the United States.

Only through an informed elector that knows how to make intelligent decisions can America stay free. To get the information they need, individuals must also learn the difference between good and bad news sources.

It can be a judgment call but believe it or not, most newspapers and other media do want to fulfill the basic tenants of good journalism.

A newspaper needs to make money or it can’t stay in business. But also, a newspaper must place top priority on informing it’s readership through accurate and impartially written stories. It needs to establish and maintain creditability. If it can’t do this, it shouldn’t and won’t be in business.