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).

A letter to Wahl-Jorgensen

We've been asked, in the spirit of reading a book about the culture of letters-to-the-editor, to compose a letter to the author of Journalists and the Public: Newsroom Culture, Letters to the Editor, and Democracy, by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen. Though forcing myself into the format of a "letter" to an academic scholar about the content of their work makes me cringe, I'll take my marching orders with only the slightest protest (which I am now done with, thanks for listening).


This book serves as an excellent primer for students just entering the field of democratic theory of media studies -- particularly by highlighting the connections between the two. The format was brilliant -- by placing letters to the editor in the context of democratic theory before launching into an enthnographic study of the newsroom culture that curates and publishes them, you gave readers an opportunity to place the high fluent (albeit well intentioned) theory of letters pages as public sphere for debate and representation of popular opinion against the juxtaposition of the workload reality that commercial newsrooms are faced with on a day-to-day basis.


I suppose there are a number of things to walk away from this book with, but the biggest takeaway for me was the impact that the commercial industry has on the newsroom. The letters editors featured extensively at the Bay Herald, as well as those interviewed throughout, believed one thing about the role of letters in the public sphere while juggling with the reality of increased demand on their time. Although the consolidation of newspapers with other media outlets is not the sole thing impacting the letters pages and their ability to mirror the public debate surrounding the issues of the day, it is at least one that could be impacted through public policy changes. The other problems cited -- the "idiom of insanity," the extensive submissions from racists or other prejudiced individuals with an axe to grind -- could be alleviated if the editors had time to reach out in the community and cultivate relationships with their readership and authors.


I wonder what you would write today, as newspapers across the country are folding and the journalism industry is desperately seeking solutions. How do suppose a non-profit paper's letters pages might differ? Or do you believe that as online readership has increased that letters still play the same role -- in your mind and in the minds of those you interviewed?


Always more questions than answers, huh?

Cheers.

Letter to the editor -- Part Two

I wrote my second LTE for The Boston Globe after noticing a piece discussing the merits of being a child of affluent parents if applying to private college -- especially during the economic recession.

This letter has a similar theme from the last one, but with an altered framework. Unlike the last letter I sent to the Hampshire Gazette, the article that prompted the Globe letter was influenced by the comments of readers that trailed after the post.

Reading through some of the drivel made me favor the commenting method of sites like Slashdot, which allow the community to rate the best ones up and push the poor ones down.

Anyway, here it is:

The American Dream sure is seeing a revision. Instead of opening her arms to the tired and the poor, she'll just be sure to check your credit rating before opening the gate.

Peter Schworm's piece in Tuesday's Globe (“Economy lifting college prospects of the well heeled”) makes one thing certain – if students from affluent families are more likely to be admitted into private schools than those requiring financial aid, we can be assured that our public schools will see an even greater increase in applications in the coming years as they are turned away from these institutions.

Investment in public higher education is vital during difficult economic times. State community colleges and four year schools are in dire straights. By the end of last year, dramatic increases in applications at state schools (see Boston Globe “Applications soar at public colleges,” Dec. 23, 2008) were already present. We have a choice: we can prioritize education for the next generation of American workers or we can leave education only to the wealthy.

Letter to the editor -- Part One

Photo courtesy of bill dwyer via Flickr and Creative Commons

I sent this in to the Daily Hampshire Gazette this evening in response to an article in Monday's paper regarding a 129% increase in applications at Holyoke Community College. I suppose now we will just wait and see...

As an alumnae of Holyoke Community College who is about to graduate from Smith College in May, I am heartened by the increase in applications reported by Kristin Palpini in Monday's Gazette (“HCC hit by wave of college hopefuls”). I enrolled at HCC merely because it was affordable, but was inspired with the quality of education I received. Programs such as the Learning Communities, which pair off traditionally separated academic disciplines (such as math and literature), presented challenging coursework. All were taught by a dedicated faculty who are tirelessly committed to the mission of education despite being under constant threat of budgetary cutbacks.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act reflects President Obama's campaign promises to both invest in education and long-term economic growth. According to the Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts (PHENOM) this includes a possible $813 million for education funding in this state. At least $142 million of this will be allocated to public higher education. PHENOM also sees potential for piloting free tuition at three of the state's community colleges through federal budgetary relief for Medicaid.

The 129% increase in applications at HCC is a tremendous opportunity. Education is one of our best investments in difficult economic times. I hope our legislators work with the strong network of Massachusetts residents and organizations to ensure that every single person who wants to enroll in college is able to access the quality education our state schools must provide.