There’s a lot to be irked about with the Harper’s letter — which falls into a weird middle ground between letter and op-ed — but I have three issues as a person who edits an opinion section that includes letters to the editor and op-eds. THREAD

1. Letters — actual thoughtful responses to a publication’s content — are an important form of checks and balances on journalism. Journalists are inherently privileged by their platforms and letters give voice to the actual most important people, the readers.

What Harper’s has done, by handing over that space to this odd chain letter, signed by academics and celebs, misses the point of letters sections and takes a platform away from readers.

2. Open letters are my biggest opinion writing pet peeve. A middle school writing device. Good for first drafts to get thoughts out but then write it like a real persuasive piece. Trust me, it‘ll be more impactful. (Unless you’re really in middle school. Then just keep writing!)

3. Dozens of signers makes it a http://change.org  petition, not journalism. I have a hard rule limiting op-ed bylines to two (three, rarely). This is so readers know who actually wrote it. I have no idea who wrote the Harper’s letter vs. who signed it to be fashionable.

Pro tip: If the only way you feel comfortable with your name on an opinion is by hiding in a crowd of dozens of other people, then you may not be ready to share that opinion in writing.

(And in the age of social media, I have a tough time with the argument about power in numbers. There’s a zillion ways, including on this website, that those who agree with the message can amplify it and show they endorse the message.)

Maybe this thread makes me sound like a monster to work with? I hope not, b/c opinion writing is an act of courage. I love all the brave people who write op-eds. Peep our general guidelines and submit something: https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/philadelphia-inquirer-op-ed-opinion-pitch-submission-20191129.html