Reasons for Rejection

WHILE working as a sub-editor on a newspaper, part of my job was sifting through the unsolicited manuscripts. Most could be immediately consigned to the bin.
The reasons were varied. Some were so illiterate they were practically unreadable. In other cases the writer had obviously not read the newspaper and was sending an article on a subject or in a style that was totally unsuitable. Sometimes the article contained blatant inaccuracies and sometimes we had carried a similar story a few weeks before.
All these I could cope with and, if they warranted it, would take the time to write a note of encouragement or constructive criticism.
But the ones that really made me mad were the ones who, in so many words, called the newspaper rubbish. I think, in their misguided way, they were trying to impress us, to show us how much better they were than our present writers.
Don't do it.
Constructive comments are fine. For example, you may say that you've noticeda gap in the publication's coverage of a certain subject and you can fill it; or you may suggest a new topic. But to say, in effect, that the present writers don't know what they're talking about and you are so much better (even if it's true!) is a real tactical error.
Editors are human and don't always look at articles completely subjectively. Praise is always a better tactic than criticism.
I once had a cover letter which began: "The man who writes your Leader Column [very often this is the editor himself, and this time it was] hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Not only is his grammar appalling, his article construction is abysmal."
He had included a copy of the paper and ringed every typo. He concluded his letter with a rant about modern standards and a hymn of praise to his own abilities.
Did we ask him to write for us?
What do YOU think!