Re[2]: Letters to the Editor -Reply

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

     I respectfully disagree.  I have had a number of letters published in 
     newspapers in various cities (Denver, Seattle, Albuquerque, etc.) and 
     length and detail have not been a problem.  Several long pieces of 
     mine were printed as op-ed pieces, and the Seattle Times, at least, 
     allowed me to edit them to fit the space.  I never made it to a major 
     newspaper like the Wash. Post or the NY Times.
     
     I think it has to do with the policies of the particular newspaper.  
     Moreover, the smaller the community, the more likely one is to get 
     stuff printed.  They DO like controversy!
     
     I have been teaching at the undergraduate and graduate level since 
     1963, including many "lay" workshops, and I think the notion that "the 
     public won't understand scientific discussions" is poppycock.  If you 
     know what you are talking about and avoid words of art (or explain 
     them), the public that cares will understand you.  This business of 
     scientists talking down is often just another smokescreen.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor -Reply
Author:  HDC@nrc.gov at hubsmtp
Date:    12/17/97 8:22 AM


Addressing each issue may not get your point in print due to length.  Editors 
want
short stuff (most of the time).  I agree with someone earlier that said pick out
one or
two points that can be refuted and show that the writer is not a creditable 
source of
information.  Don't ramble about technical stuff.  We are trying to communicate 
with
the public and they have very little time to consult a dictionary.
     
H.  Dean Chaney, CHP -  USNRC, Region IV/WCFO 
hdc@nrc.gov
ddchaney@castles.com
     
The views put forth above are my own and do not necessarily 
reflect the beliefs or policies of the USNRC or any other 
governmental entity or some of my family.