Letters editors have their own axe to grind...

Photo courtesy of The Spacebase via Flickr and Creative Commons

Some final thoughts onWahl-Jorgensen's work on letters-to-the-editor.

There are lengthy sections of the book that focus on the feelings of letters editors towards activists and activist organizations.

To them, the letters section belongs to "the people," and this elusive entity consists of private individuals, the "average Joe." In their discussions of expression entitlement they distinguish these private individuals from well-organized activists groups who have "an axe to grind." Activist groups consist of private individuals gathered to advance a cause, whereas private individuals often have "an axe to grind." In some ways, this is therefore a spurious distinction to make, but one that springs out of legitimate concerns for allowing everyone entry to the public sphere, regardless of their status and resources (102).

Wahl-Jorgensen is exactly right -- activist organizations are indeed composed of individuals. This is an entertaining dichotomy. Letters editors seem particularly concerned with questions of democratic debate and deliberation, something that would imply an interest in civically motivated individuals. But should this civically motivated individual be affiliated with other civically motivated individuals...well, that becomes a problem.

It's not that I am unsympathetic to these claims. In fact, I have had some interesting interactions over the years with people regarding these very debates (another story for another time). I share the conviction that the form letter is not the answer. I understand it is unlikely to be published. I also know that anything composed by the central office of an activist organization will never be as powerful as someone telling their own stories. And I believe, in my heart, that anyone who is crafting those form letters and trying to get them published thinks the same thing.

However, There is a middle road here. Activist organizations are not often composed of well-heeled individuals. Their memberships reflects the very "private citizen" that letters editors so despareately seek. An effective activist campaign that is incorporating letters-to-the-editor as a tactic to elevate their issue in communities will do everything they can to get activists to put these stories into their own words. By rejecting anything that comes from a particular issue group, be it environmental or gun-rights, letters editors are severely limiting the conversation and playing the gatekeeper role that the rest of the paper already plays in covering "the doings of the powerful" (105).

Changing landscapes

Image of FlickrLand (Flickr's social network) from GustavoG via Flickr and Creative Commons

Though Wahl-Jorgensen's book is rather dry and academic, I honestly find the content fascinating. And thanks to my many years in academia, I appreciate the endlessly annotated nature of the writing, even if its coming in my least favorite to read format of parenthetical notations. However any attempt to discuss any aspect of the journalism industry seems somehow dramatically outdated when compared to the reality of the current newspaper crisis. With reports as high as 15,000+ jobs lost for journalists in 2008, the landscape for journalism has been so dramatically impacted that it can be difficult to stay focused on an assessment that doesn't take these changes into account.

Lately I've been agreeing with thinking about journalism in a new frame. With so much information at our fingertips, it is possible that the role of the journalist is changing from information provider to discussion facilitator. Wahl-Jorgensen's placement of letters to the editor next to other forms of "mediated participation" falls short in today's world of Twitter and viral social networks. The idea of radio call-in programs or television talk shows as an advanced state of participation seems distant.

But the real difference is not simply how many more ways there are to participate, it is in how we define participation. Ultimately it is important to keep one distinction in mind: those old formats relied on a gatekeeper to control access to the audience. With platforms on the Internet everyone gets a shot, everyone gets a microphone, and everyone can get an audience. Moderated comments on a newspaper article or website may control some of the conversation, but for each location it is restricted in it can move to dozens of other un-mediated locations.