If there’s a pendulum between the polite palaver of an 18th-century London debate society and the shrill bluster of a cable news shoutfest, the Daily Journal’s opinion page has inched too close to the latter.

Letters to the editor are too long, too frequent and too mean, respondents in our Daily Journal reader satisfaction survey said. There are too many personal putdowns and too many daily duels between feuding writers.

I’ve been called out, and perhaps rightfully so, for not reining in the personal attacks. When I arrived at the Daily Journal in May 2014, I inherited a letter to the editor policy that, in practice, seemed to allow wide latitude for such slings and arrows.

To use a legal analogy, I relied on stare decisis — if the Daily Journal published a letter in 2010 calling someone, say, an ogre, then why banish the word in 2015?

We’ve made plenty of changes to your Daily Journal in the past year and a half — I hope you’ll agree they’ve been for the better. Now it’s time for another change, one that will advance our community conversation and encourage a more civil discourse.

Our new letters to the editor policy premieres today. Here are the key changes:

• Letters are now limited to 300 words. This requires writers to be succinct and stay on topic. No more rambling rants and epic exchanges that ought to come with a bookmark.

• We will publish no more than one letter per writer per week. Longtime letter-writers are still welcome to contribute their views, but giving the usual suspects a breather for a few days might encourage more folks to weigh in.

• Writers may respond to a letter with which they disagree within one week of its publication. The writer of the initial letter will no longer be able to rebut that response, however, as that triggers long-running personal disputes. One point, one counterpoint. After that, writers can take the debate to our online comments, but it won’t continue on the opinion page.

• No name-calling between letter writers will be allowed. Writers may criticize a public figure, such as an elected official, pundit or celebrity, but criticism must be confined to the context. Example: Citing examples of hypocrisy and calling a politician a hypocrite is OK. Thoughtless taunts that impugn a person’s character or intelligence are not.

These four ground rules should eliminate much of the hostility that distracts readers from what our opinion page is meant to be — a vibrant forum for the free exchange of ideas.

The policy is viewpoint-neutral, applying equally to writers from all sides of the political spectrum. I’m not here to suppress any ideology or perspective. I’m here as a reluctant referee who intervenes only to ensure fair play.

If you read this page, you’ll still come across plenty of opinions with which you disagree and even some that make you hopping mad. That’s both necessary and healthy.

The remedy for speech we find offensive is more speech. In a marketplace of ideas, the good generally wins out over the bad — as long as it’s given voice.

So pick up the pen. Tap away at the keyboard. Contribute to the conversation.

Corey Friedman is editor of the Daily Journal. Reach him at 910-817-2670 or email [email protected].

https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/web1_Corey-Friedman-mug_cmyk1.jpg

Corey Friedman

Editor