You probably read the Forest Voice because your newspaper doesn't give you the complete story on the public lands debate. And whenever the mainstream media do cover the issues (for example, the President's recent charade to "protect" roadless areas), they oversimplify the issues and leave out important information. As you know, it takes some effort to stay informed and read between the lines. But you can make a difference and help spread the word about the plight of our public lands by adding your perspective to your paper.

About the Op-ed Section
Can You Make a Difference?
"Mailbag" vs. Editorial
About Getting Ink
The Basics of Getting Published
Making a Solid Argument

Nothing reflects the spirit of community debate so much as the op-ed sections of America's papers. From discussions about local ordinances to flame wars between sharply opposed zealots, from outrageous statements of colorful characters to thoughtful commentary from qualified experts, the op-eds tell us how to interpret the news and (even when we disagree) show us the different extremes of the debate.

You may doubt that your opinion will make much of a difference. But, the united voice of thousands of Forest Council members can change public opinion. Even if readers disagree with your argument, they will at least realize that taxpayers oppose the costly destruction of their public lands. By voicing your opinion, you can help re-frame the debate. Even if your opponents call you extreme, you've introduced Total Protection as one end of the spectrum of discussion. And that's a critical first step for change. Political leaders pay attention to what they see in the papers that their constituents read.

Most newspapers run shorter "letter-to-the-editor" opinions sent in by community members, as well as longer editorial pieces. Anyone can submit mailbag pieces and most get published. Longer editorials are often written by syndicated columnists, experts or individuals representing a certain group of people. Every newspaper has its own editorial policy. If you're interested in writing a longer editorial, contact the paper and ask them about their protocol. Don't be bashful about getting the information you need and asking as many questions as you like. Think you're not qualified? Think again. Your professional title, membership in an organization (such as Native Forest Council) or personal experience may convince an editor to run your letter.

Some editors like to receive a phone call about potential editorials. Others prefer to see a short proposal in writing or a rough draft. If they don't see you as an expert on the issues or someone who represents a pertinent group of individuals, you'll have to convince them that you have something important to say - and an insightful way to say it.

Make the editor's job easy: Follow word limits, proofread carefully and make sure your facts are correct. Cite your references, suggest a headline and include your name, address, phone number and email address.

Be tenacious: Don't stop at the first "no." Be friendly but persistent and try contacting different people on the newspaper staff. Have personal connections with someone at the paper? Ask if they can help you get your editorial printed.

Write well: Make a strong and clear argument that is passionate, but well-supported. Share your letter with writers you respect and use their criticism to improve your work.

Refer to recent news or editorials from the paper.

Write from the heart: Share your passion, personal experiences and the reasons you want to preserve liberty, justice and your public lands.

Keep it simple and direct: Make your statements clear and direct, with as few words as possible. For example: "Something belongs to you, they're taking it and make you pay them to do it."

Fight the Spin Doctors: Corporate America uses words like "extreme" to portray us as wackos. Fight back: re-spin their public relations ploys. With only five percent of our forests left, who's "extreme"? They say we're "taking" away their livelihood. No. We're stopping them from "taking" our sources of clean air, water and soil.

Head them off at the pass: Try to predict counter-arguments and address them in your letter. For example, economics invariably enters the debate. Industry claims that protecting public lands will hurt local economies. According to economists and even common sense, our public lands are worth more living than destroyed and especially for long-term benefits. Healthy ecosystems provide clean air, water, soil and other tangible benefits. Destroying them for short-term profits is like selling the Statue of Liberty for scrap iron.

Avoid finger-pointing or flame wars: You're writing this to unite citizens against corporate tyranny, not each other.

Remember why we're doing this: For our future. We want to protect public lands and living life-support systems for our children and grandchildren.