By Seth Boyes,
Seth Boyes, News Editor
I had to chuckle while doing my proofreading this week, because I completely agree with the first line of Mr. Johnson’s letter to the editor — these three-column letters about Decorah’s proposed municipal electric utility are indeed getting old, regardless of whether the authors are supporting or opposing next month’s referendum.
What’s more, in receiving this week’s letter from Alliant’s director of operations, I was informed he too plans to submit his thoughts as part of a three-part series for the opinion page. I imagine the company likely drew its inspiration for such a move from Decorah City Council member Emily Neal, whose “letter in three parts” ran through most of January — that was something I’d never seen at the time, but now I’ve seen it twice in less than two months.
I’m all for discussion and debate on this page (well pages would be more accurate given recent weeks). I’ve written plenty about the important role of the opinion page already, so I won’t hash all that out again this week — besides, space on the page is again at a premium it seems). And I don’t want to stifle public discourse, especially when readers have lots to say (seriously, if I told my counterparts across the state this paper’s opinion section was two pages for four of the first six weeks in 2025, their eyeballs would probably pop out of their sockets and land in their open mouths).
But folks, there’s a limit to all things.
Typically, I give letters concerning bonds, referendums and other ballot measures a little more leeway since they are by their very nature commenting on a specific issue rather than extolling a specific candidate’s character. That said, I’ve decided the best course of action this time around is to handle these MEU letters the same way we handle political content during election season.
In short, I’m giving fair warning — the Decorah Leader will not be printing any opinion content related to the MEU vote in its Feb. 27 edition (though I may just sketch up an editorial cartoon to joke a bit about how quiet the opinion page is likely to be that week). This way, as with political content ahead of an election, neither side will get the proverbial last word in before folks head to the polls on March 4.
And I’m telling you all this because I want to be transparent about our plans. It would be unfair to allow a city council member to argue for the MEU over the course of three weeks, and then turn around and deny Alliant the chance to do the same in opposition to the city’s proposal. Adapting our election cutoff policy to the MEU vote allows the newspaper to be consistent while also making room for everyone (including you, dear reader) to be heard.
That said, this whole situation will likely result in some updated policies here at the newspaper (for example, I know for sure I’ll be rejecting any and all three-part opinion pieces after this).
Overseeing an opinion page is never an easy task, especially when it’s as active as this paper’s. Unfortunately, it’s not necessarily as simple as declaring a maximum word count or capping how often any given individual can submit their thoughts for publication over the course of a month. You see, for each limit imposed, discussion is likely stifled by at least a small degree — and that would run counter to the very purpose of an opinion page, and perhaps a local opinion page most of all.
So, we at the paper will be pondering how best to balance things on good ol’ page four, and if you have any thoughts on the subject, you can always submit a letter to the editor (I’m not saying we’ll necessarily take your advice, but the more input the better).
Until then, remember the gate’s closing on the MEU debate.
Submit A Comment
Fill out the form to submit a comment. All comments require approval by our staff before it is displayed on the website.