YOU will be aware that The Herald last week enjoyed a tie-in with the New York Times, publishing a series of news features from that august journal. You may also know that that paper is famous for the tagline "All the News That's Fit to Print".

It was introduced by new owner Adolph S Ochs in 1896 (another contender had been “A decent newspaper for decent people"). It is intended to signal the paper's editorial standards.

The Herald is nearly 70 years older than its transatlantic counterpart, and seeks to uphold the same standards. However, times move on (no pun intended), and newspapers these days are about much more than the recording of daily events. We are renowned for the strength and range of the comment we carry in our Voices section, from staff writers, freelance and contract contributors, and from readers.

That range, though, can sometimes cause consternation. We are proud to provide a platform for a broad range of views, and that inevitably means that some readers are being presented with opinions with which they profoundly disagree. That may be due to a divergence of views on politics – it would be impossible to have such disparate contributors as Lesley Riddoch and Adam Tomkins, Brian Wilson and Iain Macwhirter, Neil Mackay and Mark Smith, Kevin McKenna and Tom Gordon – without raising the hackles on occasion. Or it may be because of a broader world view – Joanna Blythman, for example, is not short of critics of her views on Covid restrictions and vaccinations; Stuart Waiton has frequently offended the liberal sensitivities of many of our readers. Equally, we have some letter writers who, simply put, rub readers up the wrong way; you may have one or two names that immediately spring to mind.

We have said before in these columns that we do not seek, within reason, to censor our contributors; it would be a dull publication indeed that was merely an echo chamber for one's own views. That said, there is a discussion to be had about what is, as mentioned above, "fit to print".

We are not in the business of platforming wind-up merchants or trolls. Contentious views sincerely held and cogently argued are normally fine, but there is a line to be drawn.

What, in today's world, is it reasonable to publish? It goes without saying we will not tolerate racism, but who defines what is racist? Or sexist, or misogynist, transphobic, anti-Semitic? Is it wrong to be overly politically-correct, or, as the modern jargon has it, woke? Is that even possible?

We live in a fast-changing world where standards and mores are constantly shifting. We need to take that into account when making editorial judgments, but have we been getting those choices right?

Only you can judge that.