Letters To The Editor (Press, 13 June 1968)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Letters To The Editor (Press, 13 June 1968)
On 13 June 1968, a set of guidelines for submitting letters to the Editor was outlined. It was specified that letters should preferably be typed; if handwritten, they must be in ink and written on one side only. Each letter must include a legible signature and a full address, as P.O. box numbers are deemed insufficient. Authors are required to indicate whether their letters have been sent to other publications. The Editor retains the right to reject letters that do not meet the publication standards and will not return or acknowledge unsuitable submissions, although acknowledgements may be issued where appropriate. Furthermore, letters must not exceed 150 words. Several letters were referenced, with some being rejected for various reasons: O. Picton-Jones’s letter was too lengthy; a letter from X had insufficient information beyond what was reported from Sydney; the Shopkeeper was advised to wait for a court decision; and Mrs. L. A. George’s concerns about privileges were noted as applicable to many. R. Fittgerald’s correspondence regarding unemployment was not currently accepted, while C. D. Meurk and Christian Mother were both informed that further discussion on homosexual law and abortion, respectively, was not feasible at that time. Other letters, such as one from Merely David Adams, were acknowledged as contextually appropriate, while a respondent named Concerned was suggested to directly reach out to the individual mentioned in their letter. B. Andersen was reminded of the cost of courtesy in correspondence, and F.R.B. was informed that the topic in question was sub judice, which limited discussion. Finally, Th. E. Juarlus’s submission was also rejected for exceeding the word limit. The publication assured that all factories and food processing plants receive literature on safety and undergo regular inspections. In conclusion, Ball and Chain was encouraged to submit a compliant letter for consideration regarding their complaint.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand