Editorial freedom

On February 14th I wrote the following letter to the editor for my local paper.



On Wednesday President Felipe Calderon visited the California State Legislature, urging them to 'Keep the Door Open'. How dare this meddling pissant come to our country and try to influence policy and public opinion? How dare this pathetic leader, who can't even fix his own country so his people would not be forced to break into ours, ask us to take responsibility for his failure. Finally, how dare this hypocrite ask us to keep our borders open so that his citizens can come here and use/abuse or country while he has the unmitigated gall to want $1.4 billion from the U.S. for a stimulus/national security package that would help him secure his southern border from invaders from South America? I can't say what I would like to tell Mr. Calderon without being censored but rest assured it isn't very polite.

The paper asked me to remove the offensive word pissant, which I did and resubmitted it to them without that word. Today, March 8th they printed the following.

On Feb. 20, Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited the California Legislature urging them to "keep the door open."
How dare this meddler come to our country and try to influence policy and public opinion? How dare this pathetic leader, who can't even fix his own country so his people would not be forced to break into ours ask us to take responsibility for his failure?
Finally, how dare this hypocrite ask us to keep our borders open so that his citizens can come here and use/abuse or country while he has the unmitigated gall to want $1.4 billion from the U.S. for a stimulus/national security package? I can't say what I would like to tell Mr. Calderon without being censored but rest assured it isn't very polite.

Note the second to last sentence. The paper took it upon themselves to edit my letter and remove what I thought to be a crucial point in proving my point that Felipe Calderon is a hypocrite.

Therefore I took the liberty of sending my local paper the following.

On March 8, 2008 you printed a letter to the editor that I submitted entitled President Calderon should fix Mexico. I appreciate the fact that your paper has given me the opportunity to express my views and allow others to THINK about the news from a perspective that may differ from their own. As submitted originally the letter had the offensive term 'pissant' which I was asked to remove. I did and was told the letter would then be published. However when I read it in the paper I noticed that something else had been changed as well.
The last paragraph as I submitted the letter stated,

"Finally, how dare this hypocrite ask us to keep our borders open so that his citizens can come here and use/abuse or country while he has the unmitigated gall to want $1.4 billion from the U.S. for a stimulus/national security package that would help him secure his southern border from invaders from South America?"

Someone on the staff of your paper took it upon themselves to remove "that would help him secure his southern border from invaders from South America" from my letter. I thought this information was crucial in proving that Felipe Calderon is a hypocrite.
I understand that your paper has the right to edit letters as they see fit. However my letter as originally submitted had only 140 words, 110 under the limit you set for letters to the editor.
I realize that when I first began writing to your paper I was rather long winded and that was something I have worked on so that my letters fit in to your 250 word limit. I feel now that I have a much more economical writing style. Therefore everything I include, in my humble opinion, is of importance.
I feel that your editing out that one phrase from my paragraph takes away from the intent of my letter and I am saddened that you chose to do so.
In the future if you decide that you must edit my letters for space, or whatever reasons, that you please ask me first. If I find that the change is something that does not take away from my intent, then I will have no problems in agreeing to the changes. However if I feel that it takes away from my letters intent I may just decide to not have it printed. I would not have my letter printed if it means I would not be able to get my point across.

Thank you for your consideration.

Neal Ross