But then, sometimes it depends on who's wielding the pen! But before we get into that, here's a little “philosophical” publishing background.
Claims Magazine has a multi-purpose editorial mission. First and foremost, we exist to inform our readers on a variety of issues that affect/influence their job performance and career advancement. Second, we serve as a forum for the exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions among readers. And that is the primary reason for our occasional “For the Record” column. It provides readers (and others affiliated with the insurance industry) with a platform, a guest editorial niche where they can share ideas or just sound off.
This sometimes presents problems, because sometimes, some readers, somewhere, disagree with the topic or opinion expressed in “For the Record.” And by gosh, by golly, they want to make sure we know it. This results in a letter or two, or three, or more. The original author is given an opportunity to respond to the letter writer, should he or she choose. As with the column itself, the letters are all subject to editing by the Claims editorial staff, as are rebuttals.
With all submissions, we reserve the right to accept or reject an article, on whatever grounds. Does the writer make a valid point? Does the writer express himself in a reasonably logical way? Is the submission self-serving? The same scrutiny is used in choosing letters for publication. When we receive a number of rebuttal letters, they must be evaluated for publication, as we try to avoid duplication of ideas/criticisms. And we never print letters that contain threats, uncalled-for sarcasm that serves no purpose (humor is OK, though), or are deemed to be unnecessarily hurtful or rude to our general readership or other contributors.
Those are the rules and parameters we've put in place, and the very reasons we won't be publishing a letter we received last month. If contributors and letter writers wish to be taken seriously by editorial staffs of any publication, here are a few don'ts:
- Don't accuse other contributors/writers of slander.
- Don't ever use profanity, or the words idiot, stupid, or moron. Any of these indicate the writer lacks an encompassing vocabulary, is a bully, or just never outgrew their fourth-grade playground mentality.
- Don't threaten non-renewal of your subscription, and especially don't threaten us with the withdrawal of your advertising.
- Don't waste your time crying “foul” to the publisher. He's already been alerted to the fact that you're ticked off at one or more of the editors.
- Don't accuse others of incompetence unless you can prove it; otherwise, it could be construed as slander (see above).
- Don't opine that the editor was “out to lunch” or suffering from a “long hang over” [sic]. (My slight paunch does not influence my editorial decisions.)
Now let's go forward and have a productive 2006 while praying for less stormy weather this year. If we all resolved to “play nice” and give the other guy an occasional break for the sake of discussion, everyone would benefit. Insurers, insureds … and even editors.
And keep those cards and letters coming!
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
