Credit to Hannah for the subject line <g>.

ETA: Hannah’s subject line was AMS in the SMH.  Gordon’s subject line is SA writers in the papers. 

I ummed and ahhed about where to put this as people are talking about it in a number of different threads - Luke, feel free to move it if it fits better somewhere else.  For a while now I’ve been thinking of the connection between the Mission and the SMH letters page.  (Yes, my brain makes weird leaps.  I know that :-P). 

Most of the letters we pick up on and note here are those that are overtly Christian - evangelistic or apologetic in nature, proclaiming the gospel or defending it from attack.  It’s *great* to see them being written and published, and I would continue to encourage people to write more of them.  (As a side note, remember that even if you don’t get published yourself you add to the weighting of letters on a particular issue, which determines the weighting of those that are published.  So keep writing and be encouraged!) They’re the ones that are easy to spot. 

There are others, though.  Han & I were talking last week about the “subversive Christian content” of the letters we had published.  In Hannah’s it was the notion of absolute truth.  In mine, the fundamental dignity of human beings.  Neither of them were overtly Christian, but both dealt with current issues from a Christian worldview and included Christian ideas. 

And the link with the Mission.  If we get what we’re asking for in 10% of the population and it’s fairly evenly spread across all sections of society, presumably that will also include SMH letter writers.  Basically I was wondering what it would look like to have 10% of the SMH letters page coming from a Christian perspective each day.  Wouldn’t that be fabulous?! 

Okay.  Now it’s nearly midnight and I’m falling asleep at the keyboard.  The two main things I wanted to mull over were: a) Thinking about the SMH letters page as part of the mission field/a resource in the mission, and b) The makeup of the letters page in the event of reaching 10%. 

Ideas?  Thoughts?  Pillows?

SJK.

Edited to remove a superfluous comma.

Re: AMS in the SMH

Big ups for starting the thread Sophie!

[quote author="Sophie J. Kunze"]Basically I was wondering what it would look like to have 10% of the SMH letters page coming from a Christian perspective each day.  Wouldn’t that be fabulous?!

Indeed it would.

I was wondering whether it would be worth keeping a running tally of who got printed (and when?) as everyone loves a bit of competition ;) Also, p’raps you could get the ball rolling Soph with some tips on what makes a good letter? Have you noticed a pattern between what gets printed and what doesn’t? Does hand writing a letter in colourful pens & covering it with glitter help get published? (heh ;)

Also I noticed another prodigious SMH letter writer just registered here, so why don’t you say ‘hi’ Gordon, and maybe offer a few tips too… ;)

Talkback radio

Great one, Sophie!

Another thought: if we want to reach 10% of Sydney through the media we should try doing the same thing with talkback radio, not just letters in the SMH. My journo brother-in-law tells me that talkback radio reaches a much wider range and number of people in Sydney than the SMH letters page, which tends to attract a smaller bunch of more elite, highly literate people. Furthermore, often the hosts open up the lines and ask people what they’re thinking, so you can raise your own topic! The only drawback is that you have to be quick on your feet, and you have to be around and free in your office, etc, when the talkback shows are on.

I haven’t tried it yet (being a busy elitist), but I’m sure somebody can give it a go!

I’m not sure whether it would be worth it for a paper like the SMH which appears (to me at least) to run a fairly obvious editorial anti-Christian bias. It would take a lot of work by Christians in Sydney, and it would be too easy for the editors of the SMH to just bin the letters.

Wouldn’t we be better using our time evangelising? Or visiting orphans and widows? Or visiting Christ’s brothers in prison?

Just my two pence worth ... not trying to be a wet blanket, just wanted to put in an alternate view.

Regards,
minorbob

Hi all,

This is a great idea.

however, call me a paranoid newbie (don’t worry, I’ve been called that since just before the first Kennedy assassination), but I wonder if this thread might not be better re-launched under a new title. I just have this sense in my bones that if any smh journalists were lurking on this site (I know you’re going to say that never happens, but indulge me) they might take the existence of a forum like this the wrong way. It does look suspiciously like it’s targetting the smh. I can see it now—“Letter-writers collude to indoctrinate Herald Readers” by Kelly Burke.

If the forum was re-launched as “letters they shoulda published” (or something) it could have a broader vision and allay some of the conspiracy theories. Why not consider other papers like the Daily Tele, the Melbourne Age, and The Australian. Also, friends of mine (and we have been here for a very long time, Mr Mulder) have been rejected from such august publications as the London Economist, the Washington Times, and recently (in my case) the Adelaide Advertiser.

Just a thought. I won’t offend so grossly against newcomer etiquette by launching my own forum on this, but perhaps Hannah Sophie or Luke might like to consider this?

Hi Gordon :) Good to see you here :)

I agree that it is probably a wise idea to broaden our scope on this issue by including other media outlets.

[quote author="minorbob"]I’m not sure whether it would be worth it for a paper like the SMH which appears (to me at least) to run a fairly obvious editorial anti-Christian bias. It would take a lot of work by Christians in Sydney, and it would be too easy for the editors of the SMH to just bin the letters.

As I understand it the policy of the SMH letter department (and I would presume the majority of letter departments from other papers) is to publish a sample of letters received which is in direct proportion to all the letters received on one any given topic (for or against). So whilst I would agree with you that there does seem to be a fairly obvious bias against Christians (or at least Sydney Anglican ones!!) in the SMH at times I’m fairly sure that what is published in the letters section is determined by who writes what how many times :)

[quote author="minorbob"]Wouldn’t we be better using our time evangelising? Or visiting orphans and widows? Or visiting Christ’s brothers in prison?

Well, I’m not sure that you can say that writing letters to the editor (about Christian articles and reports particularly) is not a form of evangelism in some respect. Whenever I write a letter to the editor I try to convey the message or foundation of the gospel (which often directly counters what has been reported).

If any of my letters (which very rarely get published anyway) help even just one person understand (or begin to understand) that what we are on about is a relationship with God through Christ (and not church pews, choirs, ordination of women and so on) then I think my time has been well spent.

I appreciate the enthusiasm here, and certainly the more people want to write/call different media outlets the better. However I don’t have a problem with targeting the SMH because:
[list=a][*]A number of people write anyway & get published
[*]Everyone here reads the SMH (despite the love/hate thing)
[*]If Kelly or anyone at the SMH was so short of stories that they reported this thread, what do we have to be ashamed of/worried about?
[*]and finally I think the more focused our goal, the more likely we are to achieve it[/list:o]
We’re not talking about bombarding them with letters, just writing intelligent letters which they can run if they want. It works in their favour anyway, more interest = more eyeballs = more advertising $.

They don’t have to be overtly Christian, I think its just a good opportunity to watch & learn from the people who write regularly and see what gets published.

If the SMH does run an anti-Christian bias, then lets counter it thru the letters page to show we aren’t all a bunch of devisive do-good hypocrities. And not only that, but to get back to Sophie’s original question:

[quote author="Sophie"]Basically I was wondering what it would look like to have 10% of the SMH letters page coming from a Christian perspective each day. Wouldn’t that be fabulous?!

Yes. Lets make it so :)

As far as focus goes, it is usually possible to submit almost identical letters to the age and smh, and frequently possible to zap them through to the australian as well. So it doesn’t detract from focus, rather it is an issue of maximizing efficiency. Given that it can take several hours of letter-writing to get even one up, this is what I would call A Good Thing.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]As far as focus goes, it is usually possible to submit almost identical letters to the age and smh, and frequently possible to zap them through to the australian as well. So it doesn’t detract from focus, rather it is an issue of maximizing efficiency. Given that it can take several hours of letter-writing to get even one up, this is what I would call A Good Thing.

Oh I see… Thanks Gordon, these are the insider tips this thread needs. Got any more? :)

Hi Sophie,

I think it’s worthwhile for Christians to put forward a Christian response to current newsworthy issues. There’s a place for both an implicit and an explicit Christian response.

Christians aren’t just an introverted lot who love God and each other. Aren’t we also to

Micah 6:8 To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

The above quote is full of active instruction for the believer: “to act..”, “to love..”, “to walk..” I think one way we can ‘act justly’ and ‘love mercy’ is to openly and publically tell others about God’s justice, grace, love and mercy as it relates to world and national events and issues.

As Christians we are to interact with this broken, fallen world and tell out the gospel of Jesus. We know God’s grace, love, justice, mercy and that God DOES care and we can share that with others through the media who think that Christianity is irrelevant, unhelpful, and the province of the blind and unthinking. Furthermore most people think they KNOW what Christianity is and what it means which has been incorrectly informed by the media itself and by popular culture such as TV shows and movies, eg, a vicar or Christian who is well-meaning but ineffectual and ultimatley irrelevant or those loony, intolerant fundamentalists. They have NO idea about Christian grace and love etc and how these things impact upon the individual, upon relationships, upon the community, and upon a variety of issues.

Telling of God’s justice, love and mercy to the readers and listeners of current issues as reported in newspapers or discussed on radio shows an unsaved watching world that Christians DO care and HAVE something to say. Those who have the ability/gift to write clearly and succintly from a Christian perspective can and should do so. In no way does it negate or prevent Christians from evangelising, caring for the disadvantaged and needy as minorbob lovingly challenged. Surley we, as God’s chosen people and blessed with a every spiritual blessing and with a variety of talents and gifts can do take up addressing our multi-media with a Christian perspective AND evangelise AND care for the needy AND .......(fill in the blanks). As Christians we have something to say which is really worth hearing. We mustn’t remain silent, but speak or write thoughtfully and prayerfully.

I feel very uneasy about Christians being silent on the many issues that we read about in the printed media and hear on radio. God has spoken so how can we stay silent on so many issues and events that NEED a Christian perspective. It is another thing all together if our letters are published or not, and if Christians get their 2 cents worth on talkback radio or not. We can leave that in God’s control which is where it belongs anyway.

cheers
Angela

I’ve had several letters to the SMH published (in my real name - not the pseudonym that I use here).  My tip is to keep your letter SHORT.  This is very difficult, but with a bit of practice you should be able to make your point in two sentences or less (preferably where one sentence equals one line of print in the column).

Also, don’t send serious Christian letters all the time or I feel that you risk being stereotyped ("Oh here’s another letter from that religious nut, so I can delete it straight away").

Happy letter writing!

JD :-)

As a compulsive writer of letters to the editor myself, my suggestions are:
1.  keep it under 200 words if at all possible (or be very famous and worth publishing at greater length);
2.  try your local suburban newspapers - they are generally desperate for content and never knock anyone back.

Ahahahahahaha

Just saw Sophies new moniker ;)

[quote author="Dani Treweek"]Ahahahahahaha
Just saw Sophies new moniker ;)

lol.  took me a while :)

My basic tip for style would be to think George Costanza. Short. Annoying. Persistent.

That’s it really.

Did anyone respond to Helen Irving’s opinion piece in the paper this morning?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/02/1086058915692.html

Hey everyone -

I was out all day yesterday so I have much to respond to all at once.  ::sees AMSers back off with fear and trembling::

[quote author="Luke"]Have you noticed a pattern between what gets printed and what doesn’t? Does hand writing a letter in colourful pens & covering it with glitter help get published? (heh ;)

Those $20 notes I keep slipping them in the mail seem to help ;-)

The basics: Letters need to be in by 3pm (for email & fax) for next day publication.  Post is obviously out of your control.  After 3pm they’re for two days time.  If you’re shortlisted you’ll be notified by phone or email by 5pm. 

I know that sometimes during election campaigns they don’t accept mobile phone numbers, only land lines.  I have a signature set up in outlook express with my address & phone number ready to go so I don’t have to keep retyping it.  (But that’s just laziness on my part <g>.)

As to what gets printed...I think Jacob Davidovich covered most of it in his post here:

[quote author="Jacob Davidovich"]My tip is to keep your letter SHORT. This is very difficult, but with a bit of practice you should be able to make your point in two sentences or less (preferably where one sentence equals one line of print in the column).

The SHORT is important.  Very important.  Hugely important.  Two hundred words is the maximum they allow.  Most of mine have been closer to the 20 word mark.  Take the point you want to make and reduce it to its essence in the fewest words possible. 

Shorter letters give them greater flexibility in what they publish.  They can use up the last little bit of left over column space with your two lines.  My grandfather calls these letters “fillers”.  Mum & I love writing them.  In the Kunze/Andersen SMH letters scoring system last on the page gets you double points (as does first on the page, and letters with a cartoon). 

[quote author="Jacob Davidovich also"]Also, don’t send serious Christian letters all the time or I feel that you risk being stereotyped ("Oh here’s another letter from that religious nut, so I can delete it straight away").

[quote author="and Luke"]If the SMH does run an anti-Christian bias, then lets counter it thru the letters page to show we aren’t all a bunch of devisive do-good hypocrities.

Yes, lets!  The Jensens aren’t the only topic in town, nor the only subject that should have Christians engaging in public debate.  Aim to write intelligent and well informed letters on anything that catches your eye.  So a big “ditto” for Jacob’s stuff. 

[quote author="And my fellow letter writer Gordon Cheng (welcome Gordon!)"]I just have this sense in my bones that if any smh journalists were lurking on this site (I know you’re going to say that never happens, but indulge me) they might take the existence of a forum like this the wrong way. It does look suspiciously like it’s targetting the smh. I can see it now—“Letter-writers collude to indoctrinate Herald Readers” by Kelly Burke.

Hey, it’s been known to happen .

::waves to any lurking SMH journalists who should feel free to go and introduce themselves , if they feel so inclined:: 

I don’t mean to target the SMH specifically, except that it is the paper I read and write to regularly.  And I’m certainly not wanting to bombard them with identical letters every week!  Both you and Lionel make good points about using *all* forms of media to reach people.  It’s already been established in these forums that I’m a 702-listening SMH-reading nerd (thankyouverymuchMrAtkinson), so that’s where I’ll be primarily hanging out.  But I am branching out...I sent my first letter to Southern Cross this week <g>. 

[quote author="Gordon also"]As far as focus goes, it is usually possible to submit almost identical letters to the age and smh, and frequently possible to zap them through to the australian as well. So it doesn’t detract from focus, rather it is an issue of maximizing efficiency. Given that it can take several hours of letter-writing to get even one up, this is what I would call A Good Thing.

That’s a good idea that I hadn’t considered.  ::loffs email::  And you’re obviously much more diligent in your letter writing than I am - if I can’t nail the wording in about 3 minutes I’m likely to give up <g>.

[quote author="Rowen"]
[quote author="Dani Treweek"]Ahahahahahaha
Just saw Sophies new moniker ;)

lol. took me a while :)

And it took me even longer!  Do I get to declare my own feast day or something? ;-) It’s probably for the best, you know, since I’m not going to be joining the elite in the 500 club any time soon.  I refuse to join in Hannah’s blatant attempt to boost her posting rate :-P

SJK.

[quote author="Sophie J. Kunze"]It’s already been established in these forums that I’m a 702-listening SMH-reading nerd (thankyouverymuchMrAtkinson), so that’s where I’ll be primarily hanging out. 

NERD!!

I was very close to sending one in yesterday, but I couldn’t get it pithy enough :) and I missed the 3pm deadline (thanks Soph) anyway. oh well.

Sophie wrote

And you’re obviously much more diligent in your letter writing than I am - if I can’t nail the wording in about 3 minutes I’m likely to give up

No absolutely not. (Hi Sophie, nice to meet you). When I say several hours, I am generously assuming 15 minutes per letter, which includes reading time, and (let’s say) a publication ratio of 1 in 7. Therefore 7 x 15 = 105 minutes.

Given that a sermon might take me 8-10 hours to write, and reach 100+ people (or 30, or 200, depends on where), and a letter in the paper gets read by a couple of hundred thousand mainly pagans, the cost: benefit ratio is OK.

I know that is simplistic but it makes me feel better about the sweat involved :-)

hmmmm.  this is not good .