To the editor:
I feel a need to comment on your editorial published on Aug., 5 2023. I was disheartened to learn that subscribers – or maybe former subscribers – resorted to namecalling and accusations of illegal behavior toward the Quill staff members. That should not have happened.
It is, however, a sign of the lack of tolerance that exists in our nation. Civility towards persons with whom we have disagreements is becoming a very rare commodity. Quill staff members deserve an apology from those who were responsible for those acts.
That said, having read the editorial several times now, I am a little suspicious that the editorial was completely honest with your readers about why the Quill changed to an e-Edition format. The shift to e-Editions was, you say, “a carefully thought-out decision, aimed at modernizing our operations while making our content more accessible”.
Okay, good.
You added, then, that the change “was done with the best intentions at heart: to keep up with a rapidly evolving industry and to continue serving” your readers.
Again, okay. Probably so.
However, I can’t help but feel that one of the most important reasons for going to e-Editions was a financial one. It is much cheaper to publish an e-Edition than a paper edition. Online requires no printing presses, no paper, no ink and reduced distribution costs. One copy or 10 thousand, the cost is the same.
I would have been more inclined to go along with the sense of altruism your editorial was trying to convey if, along with all the other reasons for change, the financial side would also have been mentioned, at least in passing. Just an “Oh, and by the way, it’s also cheaper” comment would have sufficed to give the message a little more transparency and believability. You shouldn’t have left that out.
