A number of Chicoans came up to me this week to thank me for the paper’s new letters policy. I guess I technically played a part by talking with my boss about it, but really, this decision came from the upper echelons, so the credit isn’t mine.

I do support the change. I had a similar policy when I sat in the editor’s chair across town, and the days I’ve filled in editing the Opinion page here brought back memories from 15 years past.

Letters are the lifeblood of a healthy paper. If readers don’t feel spurred to comment on topics we cover, we’re not covering the right topics the right way. Like remarks at a council meeting, letters bring feedback to the forefront.

But, just like meeting speakers, letter-writers can convey misinformation as readily as insight. Distinguishing between the two is a key role for an editor. I relayed some of this experience six weeks ago, in a column headlined “Letters to the (actual) editor,” in which I mentioned an email exchange about a 70-year-old event that could be apocryphal. The letter didn’t run.

One I didn’t mention related to the Russo-Ukrainian war. The letter-writer excerpted a passage from a NATO leader’s speech, discussing the alliance’s expansion. The letter-writer used this to bolster a claim that Russia invaded to forestall the Ukraine joining NATO. However, the excerpt wasn’t about the Ukraine; it was about Scandinavia, where NATO indeed expanded.

That’s a factual matter, not a difference of opinion. Readers — community members in general — expect accuracy in every piece we publish, whatever the section. The “opinion” label doesn’t bestow a free pass from factuality.

It also shouldn’t be a free pass from coherence. As at many papers, the submission policy here includes the proviso that letters may be edited for clarity and grammar. That’s the case with articles, too.

Are we perfect? No … we’re human.

Human relations might be the biggest reason I support the change. Verbal duels wear thin fast. They’re the fuel of social media, but I don’t think Twitter — aka X, or whatever it’s called today — should set the standard to emulate. We don’t have to join the race to the bottom.

At the previous place, I’d get letters calling Doug LaMalfa an idiot. (This was before he became a congressman, back when he represented us in the Legislature.) I’d reply, “Don’t tell me he’s an idiot. Explain what he’s done that makes you think he’s an idiot.” The reader may come to the same conclusion, perhaps even someone who wouldn’t have continued past the insult.

Here, I found letter-writers insulting other letter-writers. One could argue that someone like Anthony Watts is fair game because he’s a public figure, having served on the school board and gaining fame as a meteorologist. Should he be a punchline or punching bag for voicing unpopular opinions? It might surprise him to hear I don’t think he should. Attack his ideas, not him.

Anthony is my neighbor. He doesn’t live on my street, and we don’t think along parallel tracks, but he’s my neighbor. So is Patrick Newman, Richard Roth, Irv Schiffman, Loretta Ann Torres and the other Chicoans who write in with their views. I see them on the street, at the farmers market, at meetings. They’re not distant abstractions, they’re townsfolk.

The fake-news era has eroded trust in government, media, even neighbors. It may seem pollyannish to espouse respect and civil discourse, vestiges of quainter times, such as 15 years ago.

The expression “be the change you want to see” resonates with me — and, apparently, my boss as well. Mike gave his rationale in his column last Sunday with a fitting headline: “It begins with us — so let’s start anew.” I couldn’t have worded it better.

Evan Tuchinsky is weekend editor of the Enterprise-Record. You can reach him at etuchinsky@chicoer.com.