The Herald has received dozens and dozens of letters regarding the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Not a single letter on this topic has been published.
The problem is what is known as “Astroturf” or “turf” letters – editorial page jargon for letters that appear to be grassroot responses from citizens, but are in reality part of a letter-writing campaign generated at various Web sites.
For example, the first deluge of Roberts letters all started exactly like this: “I am extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade.”
Letters don’t have to be word-for-word the same to qualify as turf. Letter-writing “wizards,” such as the one used at CitizenLink, help writers construct a letter by offering example paragraphs to choose from. These, however, are still turf, because the site provides the talking points and the language.
CitizenLink tells its would-be letter writers that “It is not unethical or ‘plagiarism’ for you to assemble and submit a letter using this tool.” We strongly disagree. Presenting words, phrases and facts as your own work violates the spirit of original letter writing.
It’s usually easy to tell turf from real.
Here is an excerpt from an authentic letter on Roberts: “There sure is a lot of crappola flying in the air regarding the Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts.”
Here is turf: “Please forego the White House spin and actually dig into John Roberts’ record.” Messages at the bottom of such letters, guaranteeing the message is “authentic,” don’t make it so when 20 others have used the same language.
Any national story is subject to turf. The formatted Cindy Sheehan letters arrive daily. But so do the real ones, many of which have been published.
The Herald received a lot of turf letters from readers regarding the asbestos bailout bill, despite the fact the paper had not run an article about the bill. Which is not to say letters must only address issues that have appeared in the paper, but it is another clue that a slew of letters is likely turf.
If you are tempted to write a letter from a Web site, ask yourself: If I had to write this letter the old-fashioned way, on paper, and entirely in my own words, would I do it? Do I feel so strongly about this subject that I am compelled to write?
Letter-writing wizards make it too easy to send off a missive. They also steal your authentic voice. We want letters – on any and all subjects. So please keep writing. Just keep it real.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
