The
Torrevieja
U3A (University of the Third Age), of which I am member, like
many of the other groups and similar organisations publishes a
'Newsletter' to pass on information about past and future events and
group meetings. Like many of the publishers the U3A provides both a
hard copy and an electronic copy on its Website.
Unlike many of the other contemporaries
it does not offer the opportunity for readers to comment about
articles.
In the recent
summer
edition there is an article in which a statement is made that I
wished clarification of. I wrote directly to the author to seek the
answer to my question but so far have not received any reply. I am
aware that my email was delivered and read.
So I wrote to the Editor of the
newsletter pointing out that I would like to know whether the
publication offers the right to reply to comments in an article and
if so what the procedure is. I was surprised to receive the reply
“This is the first time I have been asked this question. I would
think that if it is an article from a member or Group leader that you
wish to comment on, then it is better you contact the author”.
I have pointed out that I have taken that line of action without
success.
It surprised me to be informed that I
am the first to ask the question. Does it mean that all other readers
accept everything that is included is without question? Do they read
it as a notification, proclamation, or even an edict, from on high
that must not be challenged or commented on? Or is it that there is
an apathy to it and so few read it? Or is it that never before has it
contained any contentious writings.
I decided to raise this omission of
'Letters to the Editor' or 'Readers Comments' facility with the Chairman of the Torrevieja U3A in
writing as follows.
“The current
editorial format of the newsletter does not offer any reader, be that
from hard copy or the pages on the world wide web, the facilities to
comment, or the right of reply, about an article through the
publication. The current situation means that any contributor, in the
majority of cases a committee member or group leader, of an article
can make a statement of believed fact, or an expression of opinion,
to the reading public unchallenged.
Without the facilities of
replying through the publication, in its varying available sources,
an alternative contributor has no way of expressing an opinion about
the contents of an article to the initial readership. Any such
alternative contribution may be either complimentary or
contradictory. The status quo
situation does not allow an option.
I would suggest that the
committee being responsible for the editorial policy of the
newsletter give consideration to a democratic format which allows for
third person comments”.
Having received a reply of “the
matter will be discussed at the next Committee meeting. I will inform
you of the Committee's decision in due course”, I will wait
with hope; but not too much! Will the Committee be prepared to
provide a facility for the readership to comment on the words of the
inner clique of the newsletter columnists? For compliments, I believe
an obvious yes. For questions and criticisms, that's another matter.
It can't be one without the other; or can it? Or will the decision be to continue to offer
neither?