I was hoping to hear that, by and large, we were presenting a broad range of opinions through our selection of op-ed columns, guest commentaries, letters to the editor and editorial cartoons.

I was hoping to hear some specific observations on our stable of op-ed columnists – either pro or con – particularly Froma Harrop, Cal Thomas and Gene Lyons.

And I was hoping to hear that not everyone shared the opinion of the reader who started this process with the observation that “the only difference I find between the Telegraph and Union Leader is the website is easier to browse.”

For the most part, that’s what I did hear. Among the more than two-dozen readers who responded by e-mail or online comment to my column or blog, a solid majority felt our Opinion page fell either near the center or somewhere left of center. Less than a handful placed us on the right-hand side of the ideological spectrum.

Or, in the words of self-described conservative Bill Chisolm, of Nashua: “As (a) long time reader for the Telegraph, I’ve felt that the editorial page tended to lean a bit left, but never obnoxiously so.”

That doesn’t mean there weren’t any surprises – or disappointments. No doubt the biggest was that the column prompted a Nashua couple who had subscribed to The Telegraph “for more than thirty years now” to cancel their subscription because of our “mostly Right Wing point of view.”

Now after more than 30 years in this business, you would think that wouldn’t be such a big deal. Well, think again. Being told by a reader that he or she is canceling the paper because of something you did – or didn’t do – is like being turned down for the senior prom.

Still, what the reader said he really wants – “an overtly-leftist editorial policy” – runs counter to our goal of presenting a diverse selection of opinion to all of our readers, so that’s not really an option.

Otherwise, here is a sampling of what some of you had to say – the good, the bad and the ugly.

“Kudos to the Telegraph. The editorial staff may be bit more liberal than I, but the paper’s presentation DOES reflect a diverse range of opinion,” wrote William Doll, of Amherst.

“I appreciate the efforts of the Telegraph to present opposing points of view and I do indeed read them. While I do not always agree with your editorial, I find the reasons given for the position taken plausible,” said Ed Graves, of Nashua.

“Your comments about how the Telegraph is perceived was interesting, and the selection of op-ed contributors is reasonably balanced with one exception,” wrote Henry Perras, of Amherst. “Gene Lyons is not a columnist, only a spewer of venomous ridicule. His column is best suited for the Philadelphia Inquirer, not the Nashua Telegraph.”

“IMHO the NT is so left-leaning I am surprised that it has not fallen into the Pacific Ocean by now,” honestjohn replied on The Editor’s Blog.

“I have no problem with the selections of your guest editorials,” wrote mjhealey. “It’s the unsigned, opinion of the paper, editorial that seems to miss that mark most of the time.”
Lastly, my personal favorite from Jefferson1776: “Not to worry, Nick. You are still safely considered a ‘liberal rag’ around here.”

There also were a few common themes that came up in your responses:

– Can’t we find someone other than Cal Thomas to represent the conservative point of view? (Or, if not, can’t you just get rid of him anyway?)

– Our regular syndicated op-ed writers are in need of a major upgrade. Among the replacement names mentioned were David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Mark Steyn and George Will.
– We need another writer to better balance the conservative voices of our local Sunday columnists, John Bachman and Joe Konopka.

Given those observations, it might be worth revisiting the topic of our syndicated and local writers in a future column. In the meantime, feel free to share your thoughts with me on your favorite op-ed writers.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com. You can also follow him on Twitter at TelegraphEdit.

When I first started in this business way back in the Dark Ages, if someone wanted to take issue with something you wrote, they would just wait for the right moment, pick up the phone and cuss you out.

Today, with the immediacy of online comments, you can be reminded minutes after publication just what a dimwit you really are. That’s progress.

All of which leads me to an interesting online comment we received this past week related to our Thursday editorial, “Ayotte gets a rude welcome into politics.”

Based on Attorney General Kelly Ayotte’s announcement that she was stepping down from that post to consider a run for the U.S. Senate in 2010, the editorial sparked a number of online comments – 17 as of Friday afternoon – but one in particular got me thinking about our editorial page and how it is perceived in the community.

While the comment is a little long, I’m going to repeat it in its entirety here to avoid any suspicion of altering the context.

“This editorial and its decided bias is an example of why I just go directly to the ‘most commented’ section to see what’s buzzing from the online community. My husband reads the print version cover to cover and keeps me updated on local news of interest to our family. It’s been part of his morning coffee routine for years. If that weren’t the case, I would have cancelled the subscription long ago.

“The only difference I find between the Telegraph and the Union Leader is that this website is easier to browse. The right wing bias is the same. The online comments on the Leader are by no means majority right leaning anymore. There are lots of former Telegraph readers making comment now. The difference being that the Leader doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.

“This editorial, the one on parents having a say, and the headline writing on letters just in the past week (let alone the usual practice of headlining neo-con criticisms favoring the positions of the letters) is proof enough for me. Add to that the right wing pieces they subscribe to outnumbering independent or liberal writers. The Telegraph is becoming as fair and balanced as Faux News.”

Now I could take some time to respond to each point directly – the editorials, by definition, are supposed to have a bias, all headlines on letters to the editor should be written to convey the writer’s point of view, etc. – but that’s not the point.

What really struck me is that after 20 years of hearing us referred to from time to time as “that liberal rag,” at least one reader believes our Opinion pages have a – to use her term – “right-wing bias” on par with our celebrated neighbor to the north.

Now as the author of The Telegraph editorial that endorsed Barack Obama for president back in October – you remember, that’s the one I told you resulted in about two-dozen cancellation notices – I’ll admit I find this right-wing observation a bit difficult to take too seriously.

But given perception is always in the eye of the beholder, I’m not going to dismiss it entirely out of hand, either.

What I would like to do is use this as an opportunity to reiterate the philosophy behind The Telegraph’s editorial page, which is simply this: to engage our readers in conversation by presenting a broad range of opinions on the issues facing our community, our state, our nation and our world.

We try to do this through our editorials, which our six-member editorial board makes a conscious effort each week to base on the merits of the particular issue, not ideology. That’s why we can consistently support Gov. John Lynch at election time, but still be critical of him over the patchwork state budget and his positions on expanded gambling and medical marijuana, to name a few.

We try to do this through our selection of syndicated op-ed columnists. That’s why we publish the liberal Froma Harrop every Tuesday and the conservative Cal Thomas every Wednesday, supplemented by a range of liberal (Gene Lyons), moderate (Ann McFeatters) and conservative (Deroy Murdock) writers.

We try to do this through our selection of guest commentaries on Sundays, such as today’s pieces by U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes on the energy bill and Senate Republican Leader Peter Bragdon, of Milford, on the state budget.

We try to do this through our selection of letters to the editor, at least in those cases where we receive letters from both sides of a particular issue.

And we try to do this through our selection of editorial cartoons. While some are selected specifically to illustrate the point of that day’s editorial or syndicated column, others are chosen not so much based on their politics, but timeliness, effectiveness and – perhaps above all – humor.

Now I realize there are some newspapers in the country whose editorial pages as a whole are intended to reflect the political philosophy of the publisher and/or editorial board. As such, the editorials, columns and cartoons all carry a similar message.

Ours isn’t intended to be one of them.

So given that, I am extremely curious this morning whether you share the opinion of our online friend that our Opinion pages are too conservative. Or, while we’re at it, too liberal.

Or do you feel that, on the whole, we are succeeding in offering you a broad range of opinions on the important issues of the day.

This is your opportunity to speak up – and you don’t even have to cuss.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or
npappas@nashuatelegraph.com. You can also follow him on Twitter at TelegraphEdit.

I must say the initial response to my decision to begin imposing a 250-word limit on letters to the editor this week has been pretty reasonable.

Other than the two comments at the end of the original blog item, “Readers say tighten up on those verbose letters,” I’ve heard from a handful of people informally.

First, I was contacted by a member of our Reader Advisory Network on Sunday night who complained he couldn’t get his comments through our e-mail filter. He later changed the word in question – no, I don’t know what it is – and posted his comments to the blog.

Then, Nashua Alderman-at-Large Fred Teeboom pointed out how difficult it was to trim what ordinarily would have been a 400-word letter down to the new 250-word limit.

“I took you at your newly-directed 250-word challenge,” he wrote early Sunday evening. “After considerable re-writing and more re-writing and then more editing, I managed to get the attached letter down to exactly 250 words, while maintaining my central theme.”

Sheesh, talk about taking me literally. Fred’s letter, “Overriding cap wrong for tax reimbursements,” was published today.

On Monday, I heard from Ed Graves, of Nashua, an occasional letter writer, who suggested giving writers of well-written longer letters a second chance rather than rejecting them outright.

Ed also pointed out that it could be a challenge to rebut a much-longer guest commentary if limited to 250 words before closing with this: “Thank you and I appreciate the indulgence of letting me exceed the desired letter length in the past!”

You’re welcome, Ed.

State Rep. Jordan Ulery, R-Hudson, weighed in with what he labeled a “concern, not a complaint.”

“While I do understand the need to limit letters, the issues are so widespread, so deep, that the limit regional papers are imposing does not, in my opinion, serve the public well,” he wrote in an e-mail to me.

“A 300, 250 or 200 word limit reduces profound topics to mere sound bites. That is not fair to the reader, the writer or the topic. There are valid arguments on both sides of an issue that can and should be made public. Then again, being forced to be concise has its advantages.”

Finally, we received our first letter to the editor in response to my Sunday piece earlier today from Janet Ebsen, of Nashua; it’s scheduled to run in Wednesday’s paper, so check it out there or online tomorrow morning.

And as is usually the case, you weren’t bashful about offering your two-cents’ worth – and rest assured that your feedback was considerably more valuable than that.

My original query was prompted by a number of factors: anecdotal evidence that too many letters were exceeding our admittedly loose 350-word maximum; other newspapers in the state were capping lengths at either 200 words (New Hampshire Union Leader) or 250 (Concord Monitor); and an exchange in a National Conference of Editorial Writers listserv that found 350-word – or longer – letters were definitely the exception.

Shorter letters, of course, mean we would be able to publish more of your pithy prose, which was the main reason I raised this issue in the first place.

All told, I heard back from several dozen readers either by e-mail or in direct postings to “The Editor’s Blog” version on the Web. All were eager to extol the virtues of shorter, longer and everything in between.

My column also prompted a public scolding from one reader, who took me to task for violating the entire point of my 881-word piece.

“Shame on you,” wrote Steve Morgan, of Amherst, in a letter published April 12. “You did not follow the very guidelines that you want us to follow. If you, as a professional writer, cannot ‘get to the point’ in 350 words, how do you expect us to?”

Ouch!

While Steve was nice enough to acknowledge he was half-kidding – he voted to limit letters to “no more than 881 words” – the point was made. (Though I already can tell he isn’t going to be too happy with this one, either.)

Now, since not everyone included a specific maximum length in their replies, I can’t say the majority of readers who responded agreed on a word limit of X.

What I can say, however, is that based on the responses as a whole, shorter won out over the status quo by a considerable margin.

“I would like to see folks who submit Letters to the Editor be held to 250 words,” wrote Suze Scholl, of Nashua, a member of our Reader Advisory Network.

“Why? . . . If you can’t make your point quickly, then I can only assume that you are writing to please yourself and not the readers. Get a contract to write a novel; forget about Letters to the Editor.”

John Pilla, of Nashua, another RAN member, agreed.

“I like to read letters, but lately they are sooo loong, and I just tire of reading them,” he wrote. “And after a couple of hundred words they’ve made their point and arguments for it (if any). Someone can just as easily get their point across in 200 words. I’d rather see 4 letters each day instead of 2.”

An online poster turned to the French mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal to make his point.

“I have made this [letter] longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter,” Pascal wrote in “Lettres provincials” in 1657.

To be fair, not everyone was wild about imposing a shorter word limit.

“I have no strong opinions on letter length other than to comment I’d rather read one well written long letter than four mediocre short ones,” wrote John Weber, of New Ipswich.

As for Bob Scheifele, he thought our current policy was fine.

“I don’t feel they are (too long),” the Nashua resident wrote. “Clearly some will be much too winded and you must edit them, but when someone is trying to make a point, they may need more words than some predetermined limit will allow.”

So here’s the deal. Starting this week, I’m going to drop the “soft” 350-word maximum and replace it with a “harder” 250-word limit. In a perfect world, that means I should be able to publish four letters on most days – instead of two or three – which should add considerably to the number of letters we publish over the course of the year.

Will there be some exceptions made based on merit? Yes. Will I be kind to letters already resting in our active file? Of course.

And, as in the past, longer letters – those in the 500-words-and-up category – will be given some consideration as guest commentary pieces, which traditionally appear on Sundays.

In short, follow the 3-S rule: State your point. Support it. Stop.

Which is exactly what I’m going to do now in anticipation of another public flogging over this 780-word treatise.

Hey, Steve, at least it’s shorter than the last one.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com. You can also follow him on Twitter at TelegraphEdit.

Sometimes, the decision to show up and pay tribute was out of a sense of doing the right thing; other times, the primary motivation was as a parent watching his then-young daughters march as Brownies, Girl Scouts, youth soccer team members or with their classmates in the high school band.

Once there, though, the purpose was always the same: to honor the memories of those brave individuals who died fighting for their country. In my lifetime, that primarily has meant the two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan.

But in the past few weeks, I’ve found myself thinking about war, patriotic duty and sacrifice in a different way – courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense e-mail distribution list.

Now, to be honest, I first registered for this free service sometime back in 2003 – at a time when I was serving as managing editor for the newsroom – shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The reason? As morbid as it might sound, to make sure we received some type of official notification if one of our local servicemen or women were killed in combat.

Local residents killed in wartime are big news for community newspapers; not so we can sensationalize the person’s death to sell papers, but so we can ensure the community has an opportunity to share in the grieving and celebration of that person’s life.

So, every few days – there had been 16 such news releases distributed this month through Friday – an e-mail alert flashes in the bottom right-hand corner of my computer screen with the stark words: “DoD identifies (fill-in-the-service) casualty.” Or, in some cases, “casualties.”

With no offense intended for the public affairs personnel who have the displeasure of writing these releases, they all follow a simple, cookie-cutter pattern:

“The Department of Defense announced today the death of a (soldier, airman, etc.) who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

“(Rank, name, age, hometown) died (date) near (location) of wounds suffered from (specific circumstances). (He or she) was assigned to the (specific unit).

“For further information related to this release, please contact the (branch) Public Affairs office at (phone number).”

Initially, as mentioned earlier, signing up for these releases was purely a defense mechanism. Ordinarily, newspapers hear about war deaths in the community through word of mouth a day or two before the official press release is distributed, but I’ve learned over the years in this business that it never hurts to have a backup plan.

As such, my eyes became trained to immediately lock in on that part of the release that mentioned the individual’s hometown. If the person didn’t have ties around here or somewhere in New England, I quickly resumed what I had been doing prior to the interruption.

Lately, however, I’ve found myself dwelling a little bit longer on these three-paragraph news releases. How old – or young – was that person? Was it someone’s son or daughter? How did that person die? In combat? Accidentally?

As such, I’ve learned this month about people like 1st Lt. Roslyn L. Schulte, 25, of St. Louis, who died Wednesday near Kabul, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device.

Then there was Spc. David A. Schaefer Jr., 27, of Belleville, Ill., who died May 16 in Baghdad, Iraq, after an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit.

And Staff Sgt. Esau I. De la Pena-Hernandez, 25, of La Puente, Calif., and Sgt. Carlie M. Lee III, 23, of Birmingham, Ala., who died May 15 at Forward Operating Base Shank, Afghanistan, after their patrol was attacked by enemy forces using small-arms fire in Chak.

Maybe it’s just a function of getting older. Maybe the tough exterior that I’ve developed over the years from dealing with so much tragedy in this business is starting to crack. Or maybe it’s just the father in me instinctively reacting to the deaths of men and women so close to my daughters’ ages.

Whatever the reason, as we prepare to observe another Memorial Day on Monday, these e-mail alerts have given me a new appreciation for the sacrifices that are being made each and every day by people I’ll never have the pleasure to know.

And along with that the silly hope that the next one will be the last.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com. You can also follow him on Twitter at TelegraphEdit.

But flowers aren’t the only things that seem to be “growing” around here this time of year.

So are our letters to the editor. (No fertilizer jokes, please.) That is, they seem to be getting longer.

How long?

Well, in some cases, much too long to even consider publishing. And that isn’t a good use of either your time or mine.

So I thought this might be a good time to reiterate our letter policy so that everyone at least has a fighting chance of seeing their letter in print and on our Web site.

Put simply: The shorter, the better.

When I wrote a column last year around this time titled “A few tips on getting your letters published,” I mentioned that your chances were enhanced if you kept your letters to “a maximum of between 350 and 400 words.”

And we’ve certainly published our share of longer letters over the years, some even in the 500- to 600-word range, depending on the content and quality of the letter.

Looking back now that I have another year of doing this job under my belt, I think we were being overly generous. I’ve also come to realize that our length guidelines are considerably more liberal than other newspapers in the state and elsewhere.

The New Hampshire Union Leader solicits letters of “no more than 200 words.” The Concord Monitor sets its limit at 250. Foster’s Daily Democrat caps its letters at 350 words before noting that “shorter letters are encouraged to allow quicker publication of more letters.”

And that’s really the point, isn’t it? Given that space in the newspaper is always at a premium – especially these days – writing shorter allows more of your fellow letter writers to see their works in print as well.

So how many letters do we publish now?

On an average day, we tend to publish three letters plus the “Online Comment of the Day,” which we draw from our Web site. If the letters are on the longer side, sometimes it’s only two.

For the sake of argument, then, if we were to impose, say, a 250-word limit, we would be able to publish four letters a day and the online comment. While that doesn’t seem like much of a difference, over the course of the year that could mean another 250 to 300 letters that right now never see the light of day.

And that’s a lot of opinions from your friends and neighbors that no one gets a chance to read or get agitated about.

Several months ago, the National Conference of Editorial Writers listserv carried a discussion of this very topic. And while there were a few newspapers to join the discussion that were generous in their word counts – The Baton Rouge Advocate in Louisiana sets its limit at 450 words – the majority were much stricter than here at The Telegraph.

Jim Boren, editorial page editor of The Fresno Bee in California, is a big advocate of writing short. He acknowledged there was some resistance when his newspaper went from 250 to 200 words a few years ago, but now “we don’t hear a peep.”

“If you go to a 200-word maximum, the letters are just as lively and you can use more of them,” he wrote. “So you are giving readers more letters at a time you are reducing other offerings.”

Among other newspapers with a 200-word limit are The Roanoke Times in Virginia, The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash., and the Rockford Register Star in Illinois.

Greg Peck, opinion page editor at The Janesville Gazette in Wisconsin, recalled writing a column in 2004 when his newspaper reduced the word limit from 300 to 250.

“Why? Shorter is typically better. Journalists hear that message over and over. Write it shorter, editors tell reporters. People complain that they don’t have time to read the newspaper,” he wrote at that time.

His final advice to his readers: “So get to the point. Be persuasive. And only include the facts necessary to support your argument . . .”

If you’ve broken into a cold sweat by now, relax. I’m not suggesting anything quite that draconian – at least not yet.

But we really would like to see fewer 500-, 600- and even 700-word letter submissions coming our way.

Not just because we can’t accommodate letters of that length, but because unless you are one exceptional letter writer, your neighbors aren’t going to bother to read it, either.

And if you and I are the only ones to read your letter, then we’ve both missed the point of having a letters section in the first place.

So let me put the question directly to you: Assuming for the sake of argument there always will be exceptions, what do you think our maximum length should be: 200 words? 250? 300? A more enforceable 350?

You can contact me directly through my e-mail address below or post your response to the blog version of this column on The Editor’s Blog at http://blogs.nashuatelegraph.com/theeditorsblog.

Oh, in case you were wondering, this column came in at exactly 881 words. That’s the equivalent of between two and four letters, depending on what we decide.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com. You can also follow him on Twitter at TelegraphEdit.

Much of the reason for that is technological, of course – there was no Internet, e-mail, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter and the like back in the late 1970s.

Today, there is no end to the ways consumers can interact with newspapers and staff. A day doesn’t go by where we don’t hear from readers by phone, e-mail, online comment or forums, or other devices about something in that day’s newspaper or the paper in general.

And for an Opinion page editor, that is decidedly a good thing. That’s why over the years I have tried to communicate with readers through columns such as this one, my (much too inactive) blog, the periodic creation of reader and voter advisory committees, and our Reader Advisory Network.

Come Tuesday, I will add another one: live chat.

Two weeks ago, Damon Kiesow, our managing editor/online, played guinea pig to our first venture into live chat by hosting a “Lunch with the Editor” on Feb. 19 from noon-1 p.m. with the help of live blog software created by CoveritLive.

This was the equivalent of a “soft launch” – Damon posted the notice online about three hours before the start, so it wasn’t surprising that only a small handful of readers took him up on the opportunity.

Still, he ended up taking questions on what the reporters were working on for the next day, the popularity of our Twitter feed and whether we had a Facebook page (we do), among a few others.

On Tuesday of last week, Executive Editor Dave Solomon took his turn in the hot seat. Among the questions he responded to were the duplication of some stories between The Telegraph and The Cabinet, reporting on police activities outside of Merrimack and Nashua, and a suggestion to pursue a story related to Comcast and the December ice storm.

Next up: Me. I’ll be taking questions Tuesday from noon-1 p.m. during our third installment of “Lunch with the Editor.”

I’m hoping it will be an opportunity to answer any questions you might have about the inner workings of our Opinion section: who are the people who serve on our editorial board, how we go about reaching our editorial positions, or things you would like to see – or not see – in either the print or online versions of our Opinion section, for example.

Personally, I would prefer not to spend much time engaged in a back-and-forth on why we took the position we did on a particular issue, primarily because I’m not sure this is the best forum to do it. Besides, I’m hoping to answer as many questions as possible during that 60-minute period.

If you missed either of the first two or don’t think you’ll be free to participate in mine, no need to worry. You can read the full transcripts by going to http://chat.nashuatelegraph.com.

At the moment, we plan to make these “Lunch with the Editors” a regular Tuesday feature in that noon-1 p.m. time slot. Looking ahead, readers will have the opportunity to converse with Business Editor Ashley Smith, Lifestyle Editor Deidre Ashe, Metro Editor Jonathan Van Fleet, Sports Editor Alan Greenwood, Community News Editor Deb Cad and Encore Editor Donna Roberson.

Hope to hear from you Tuesday at noon.

Texas two-step

As you may have noted, longtime Sunday columnist Paul Sylvain bids readers farewell today, now that he has relocated permanently to his adopted Texas.

Paul’s column has appeared in that space once a month on a rotating basis for the past seven years, covering a broad selection of topics – some issue-related, some personal.

We wish him and his family well in the Lone Star State; if you would like to do the same, you can reach him at paul.sylvain@yahoo.com. I’m sure he would love to hear from you.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.

Coordinating coverage for the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 New Hampshire primaries during my previous life here at The Telegraph ranks among the most exhilarating – and, yes, draining – times in my more than three decades in the industry.

Running a close second were 1993, 1997, 2001 and 2005 – the years immediately following the presidential primaries/state primaries/general election trifecta.

Why?

Because it presented an opportunity to step back, take a breath, reassess, set new goals and then try to achieve them.

Even though I spent this past election year as your editorial page editor, I feel pretty much the same way today. Now that the editorial board meetings with the candidates, endorsement editorials and election-related letters have come to a close, it’s time to move on and try to find some new ways to better engage our readers.

In fact, you already should have noticed a few changes in our print and online Opinion pages in recent weeks:

– Building off the popularity of our Saturday You Said It column – a compilation of comments posted online to some of our best-read stories, opinion pieces or letters of that week – we introduced the “Online Comment of the Day.”

Usually found in a box at the bottom, right-hand corner of the page, we select one story and present the headline, opening paragraph and what we determine to be one of the more interesting or thought-provoking comments posted online.

The new feature, which we started a few weeks ago and runs Sunday through Friday, is intended to provide another element on the page and perhaps encourage some readers to join the online discussion on that topic.

– On Sundays, we’ve started to publish more guest commentaries from readers and individuals affiliated with state and national organizations.

Last week, for example, we published pieces by Tom Irwin, a senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation in Concord, on the potential benefits of the federal stimulus package on commuter rail in New Hampshire; John B. McCormack, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, on the inauguration and the March for Life taking place two days apart in Washington; and Guy Mainella, a former Boston radio sports talk-show host who resides in Merrimack, on “If I were Obama, here’s what I would say . . .”

Given Sundays can be a more leisurely day – at least for some of us – it seemed to be a good time to offer you a collection of longer, more thoughtful pieces.

– For those of you familiar with Twitter, the free social networking service, we now have an account for our Opinion page, @TelegraphEdit.

Links to our editorial page content are now fed into our Twitter account early each morning; I’m also using the Twitter messaging system to post brief previews each evening of what you can expect to see the next morning in the paper on online.

As of Friday, 17 individuals or organizations had chosen to follow our Twitter feed, even though we have yet to really publicize it. It is my hope that as this new community builds, we will be able to find some more innovative ways to use it.

If you are intrigued but aren’t that familiar with Twitter, go to www.twitter.com and open an account. Once there, just select the “add” link adjacent to “Following” tab, then type in “TelegraphEdit.”
Each morning, you will receive brief descriptions and links to our editorials, op-ed pieces, guest commentaries, letters, comments of the day and any other items on the page.

Our next goal is to move our Reader Advisory Network into a more user-friendly location in our online forum section. In addition to making it easier for me to communicate with the group as a whole, we may set it up so members can interact among themselves, too.

For those of you not familiar with this group, it originally was formed back in 2003 in an attempt to better involve our readers in the content of the newspaper. As such, the network consists of local residents who are willing to share their e-mail addresses with us in order to serve on our informal advisory group.

Once the technical work is complete – hopefully in the next week or so – we will notify all our existing members and let them know how to get access to the forum. We also will continue to recruit new members to the group as well.

These are some of the ideas rattling around in my head as we enter 2009. Since I’ll be meeting with my boss in a couple of weeks to set goals for the year, now would be a good time to contact me and share some of your ideas, too.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.

But before doing so, I wanted to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who contributed to these pages either in print or online by:
- Writing letters to the editor on the issues of the day or to voice your opinion on something you liked or didn’t like in your local newspaper.

- Submitting guest commentary pieces for consideration.

- Posting online comments to our editorials, syndicated op-ed pieces, local columns, guest commentaries or our letters to the editor.

- Starting a new topic or contributing to one in our online forums under the headings of “Local News,” “Opinion/Letters to the Editor,” “National/World Events” or “Candidates/Politics.”

- And actively participating as a member of our Reader Advisory Network, a collection of 175 readers who agree to share their e-mail addresses with us so we can seek their counsel on issues related to the Opinion pages.

Now, I’m not just saying this to be a nice guy; I’m really not. I’m saying this because – unlike other sections of your daily newspaper – your participation is absolutely critical to success of these pages.

That was one of the two main points I tried to make in my introductory column upon replacing retired Editorial Page Editor Claudette Durocher in September 2007. The other was that, by definition, you shouldn’t expect to agree with everything you read on these pages.

Here is how I concluded that “Here’s what to expect on your editorial pages” column of Sept. 8:

In closing, I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that the editorial and op-ed pages are unique in that they are the only pages in the paper that you aren’t supposed to like every day. Given that they play to one’s personal makeup – political, social, ethical, religious, etc. – any one item on the page is likely to elicit either joy or anger spread across thousands of people.

And that’s as it should be.

These pages are also intended to be the closest to your pages in the entire paper. We want to engage you in a conversation for the good of the community. We want you to share your thoughts and opinions through letters to the editor in print and through our forums online. In short, we want you to feel that these pages are your pages, too.

If we can reach that kind of an understanding, then I think we will get along just fine.

I can’t speak for you, of course, but for me I can honestly say I’ve found these past 12 months as your editorial page editor to be among the most fascinating in my 32 years in this wonderful business.

I mean what could be better in building a relationship with readers than a year characterized by two competitive New Hampshire presidential primary races, a near strike by Nashua teachers, a yearlong economic malaise that escalated into a full-blown recession, and the historic election of the first African-American as president of the United States of America?

Did we always agree? Of course not. Even if that were possible, that would defeat the purpose of having an Opinion section in the first place, now wouldn’t it?

More importantly, you helped us to make some decisions that were reflected on these pages during the course of the year.

When we asked you how we should handle the multitude of letters related to the presidential primary, you suggested limiting them to publication once a week on our Sunday op-ed page. (Though, as I said at the time, “don’t publish them at all because they are worthless” came in a close second.)

When we asked you to weigh in after we received some criticism for publishing a rather insulting letter, your thoughtful responses helped to raise the bar in determining what letters are – and are not – appropriate for publication.

And when we reached out to you for your thoughts on publishing some of our online reader comments in the newspaper, you offered enough support for us to turn “You Said It” into a regular Saturday feature in our print edition.

So please accept my sincere thanks if you contributed in any way to either providing or shaping the content of our print and online Opinion pages during the past year.

If you didn’t participate, that’s OK, too. There will be plenty more opportunities for that starting next week when I return for the start of the New Year.

Now, if you will excuse me, I’ve got to run. My wife is on her way upstairs to unplug the computer.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor of The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or at
npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.