7 ms·

we do. all letters sent in by emailed in get the following autoreply: "The Economist thanks you for your letter, which has been passed to the author of the art

• throw14082020 6y ago
  That sounds insane. You want to rewrite a comment and still pin it on the comments author? Sounds North Korean esque, if the movie "The Interview" is a good representation of that.
  • ectopod 6y ago
    Every newspaper that I've ever read does this. There will be a blurb on the letters page saying something like "We reserve the right to edit letters". It's clear to both readers and correspondents. If you don't like the terms, don't engage. Edited to add: newspapers in the UK take libel law seriously so you have some confidence they won't grossly misrepresent your views.
    • throw14082020 6y ago
      Is "everyone does it" a good argument?. Clear to all? Not according to @bambax. Also, libel law? Why are you bringing up libel law. Manipulation of comments and fake reviews isn't libel.
      • Matticus_Rex 6y ago
        IIRC misattribution of quotes can be libelous in some jurisdictions if it causes harm to reputation.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Manipulation of comments and fake reviews isn't libel. To the extent the comment is atrributed to the author whose words were altered it can be. An published, attributed comment is a published fact claim about what the author has expressed, and if it is false and damaging can be libel.
    • TuringTest 6y ago
      It still doesn't make sense to attribute to a reader some words they didn't write. Also there's a difference between the expectation that the letter can be truncated or just the gist of it extracted for reasons of space, and entire sentences or paragraphs rewritten in full. I would have never expected the latter even with a "right to edit letters reserved" disclaimer.
      • Closi 6y ago
        The problem is that a letter that makes an excellent point might not make it with the required berevity and clarity. A letter to the editor might read: > I saw on your article about the size of foodstuffs that food items are not getting smaller - actually people are just getting bigger. Very interesting article, quite funny and relevant as I've been collecting food items since I was a child and can confirm that this isn't always true. I've got a few exapmles where it holds, but I also have a kit kat from when I was 18 (born 1979) that used to be 500g and now they are 250g as standard. I'm a big fan and this is the first time I have spotted a huge glaring error! Please explain that one! Clearly that would need to be reframed. I'm not particularly good, but I can see why a newspaper might want to shorten it: > In last week's article The Economist argued that foodstuffs were not getting smaller, however I own a standard kit-kat from the 1997 that is double the size of ones available in shops today. Thoughts? The above is probably an improvement from a readers perspective, conveys the points of the original message, and they aren't usually attributed to a specific, identifiable person anyway (usually something like John from London) so I don't think there is any huge scandal here.
      • Veen 6y ago
        That's what editors do. Everything you have read in a published book, magazine, or newspaper has been edited and often substantially rewritten by someone whose name is not on the cover or byline. Letters pages aren't comment threads; they're part of the publication and that means they're edited for style and content, just like everything else. (As someone who writes for a living, I can tell you that it takes a little getting used to, especially when an editor butchers a sentence you're pleased with. But it's part of the process you learn to accept eventually — and they were probably right.)
    • Emma_Goldman 6y ago
      The London Review of Books doesn't, and it has the best letters I've read.
      • 1123581321 6y ago
        LRB and other publications of that caliber receive enough submissions in their preferred style so as to only require light use of [sic] for errors. LRB letter writers are highly motivated to have their words be selected for publication. The Economist wishes to publish from a wider set of contributors and its house style is harder for that group to imitate.
  • Spooky23 6y ago
    The town I grew up in had a local weekly newspaper that published unedited letters. It was fun — basically an analog message board. One problem is that normal humans don’t write concisely. The other is that the Economist is a global publication... you probably would not be happy with long-form musings of Johnny Random from Papua New Guinea. You’re opting in for highbrow British style.
• nindalf 6y ago
  I'm surprised GP didn't expect that the letter would be edited. One of my letters was published. I fully expected that it would be edited and was pleased with the result. You can see both versions here - https://gist.github.com/nindalf/12a533f6ff64d7f146845f289acdb669 https://gist.github.com/nindalf/12a533f6ff64d7f146845f289acd.... I thought the edited version conveys the intent well.
  • devtosales 6y ago
    I understand that Americans call LEGO ‘LEGOS’ because you don’t just play with one brick, you play with multiple. You’re (incorrectly) using the plural form. If the above is correct, why would you refer to a single block of LEGO as LEGOS’? Also, would you consider using the word LEGO, as it’s written on the box, from now on?
  • rusteh1 6y ago
    That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
    • iainmerrick 6y ago
      Seconded! I agree that this is smart editing that preserves the original meaning well. The one decision I question is simplifying your nicely-phrased “Most programmers spend most of their time attaching these disparate blocks together” to just “most programmers spend their time [...]”
      • specialist 5y ago
        If I was King: Default assumption that statements are generalizations, unless explicitly stated otherwise. To preempt pedantry. eg Programmers => Programmers in general, with many obvious exceptions, too numerous to list in a brief reply. All Programmers => All Programmers PS- Hmmm. Now I wonder if any style guides cover this? Surely some do.
        • iainmerrick 5y ago
• pessimizer 6y ago
  Disclosed to the reader, not to the letter writer.
  • bambax 6y ago
    Yes, that was my point and I should have made it better. (Also, there's a difference between editing and rewriting.)
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]