SOME of my readers and letter-writers talk about the "power" of the editor in almost the same manner as describing the absolute authority of a monarch - or a despot.
It is certainly true that, in the daily juggle of newsworthiness and space, someone has to make a decision on what goes in and what does not and who gets interviewed and who doesn't.
When it comes to letters, some appear to cling to the notion that their cause is righteous and resonates with justice and the casual crucifixion of their prose is like an indifferent Roman praetor condemning the followers of Spartacus to death.
The truth is I value public opinion enormously. It's infinite and inexhaustible, thought-provoking and fascinating, as we've already shown with the Thought of the Day in Facebook and in the paper. But the big plus with Thought of the Day is it's fresh. Proponents of 1080 and the cemetery gates, which dominated the letter's space last week, will scream at the thought of censorship but, like a conversation in a pub, people eventually get tired of listening to an argument. In a small community like this, the editor is swiftly guided by readers, who will signal when enough is enough - unless the protagonists have something new to add.
The other, harder, aspect involves covering events of extreme tragedy - and who we talk to, to get comment.