When Should Editors Stop Editing?

Wahl-Jorgensen: Editors see a policy of limited editorial intervention as the only way to ensure an open and honest debate about the varied issues that face citizens of a multicultural society. They are also eager to show that ethical aims of fairness, accuracy and balance underpin the letters pages. (Page 87)

I definitely think it is important that editors do their best to include comments from their readers that are uncensored and in their original form. Yet there is already a subconscious censoring of letters in the process alone of selecting which letters to publish. Editors must search for letters that prove good points, yet which present opposing stances. They must give everyone the opportunity to share their opinion, no matter how mainstream or unorthodox. 

I think there may be some cases in which letters can lead to misleading interpretations of issues if the editor does not format or present them in a careful way.  I am optimistic enough that people can read editorial sections discerningly, but I still do not rule out all together that there may be a time and a place for an editor to intervene. It may not be the ideal situation for an open and organic conversation, but I think that the editor also has a responsibility to keep a constructive conversation going. 

For the most part, I think that editors do a good job of selecting letters that show various perspectives of each issue. Even though readers may immediately agree or disagree with a letter, it is still important that we are constantly faced with information that is varied and representative of everyone out there. Even if someone's opinion isn't going to change our mind, it is important that we recognize the different perspectives out there so we can create a better understanding of the world around us.