|
|
Public opinion surveys and journalism trade magazines such as Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), and American Journalism Review (AJR) have documented abundant animosity by readers toward journalists. For example, a recent CJR cover story suggested many Americans regard modern journalists as "a generation of vipers." And a 1995 AJR article said journalists are "under siege" from angry consumers of news. The story quoted six news executives who said Americans feel "mistrustful, resentful, hostile and angry" toward journalists. Driving this point home, Andrew Kohut, director of the Times Mirror Center for the People & The Press, was quoted as saying people believe the press hinders the country's efforts to solve its problems. The mainstream press has reported much the same story. For example, Atlantic Monthly ran a cover story in 1996 explaining "Why Americans Hate The Media." And in the wake of the death of England's Princess Diana there was a spate of stories saying the public was fed up with journalists who were seen as "barracuda," "jackals," piranha," and "vultures" feeding on the misfortunes of others. Another example of public antipathy toward the press may be unfolding in the scandals embroiling the Clinton presidency: President Clinton's soaring popularity, despite charges of sexual misconduct, has been interpreted as a backlash against the press. In this regard, various public opinion polls assert that people see reporters as "too intrusive" and "sensationalistic" in that they pry into the private lives of public officials.
While polls and articles are valuable second-hand barometers of public opinion, a vital element is absent from these examinations: What is missing is the voice of consumers of news directly expressing their own thoughts about the reporting business. How do readers make sense of what they read? Opinion polls force people to choose between limited options. But when given the ability to speak with their own voice, and in their own words, what do readers say? What have readers of news across the country written about the press, for instance, and has that opinion changed over the past 30 years? One way to tap directly into public discussion of journalism is to look at the historical record of published letters to the editor. Media scholar David B. Hill argues there is a strong link between public opinion and opinions expressed in letters to the editor. Hill's assertion may be problematic, given the possible capriciousness of editorial selection of letters for publication. Nevertheless, the historical record of published letters can provide valuable insights into the tone or themes of public discussion of journalism and how those themes changed over time. To discover just what the themes have been over the past 30 years, and how they may have changed, this paper studies public expressions about journalism and journalistic standards by looking at the historical record of a selection of published letters to the editor from 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992.
To obtain a national view of public sentiment about journalism, letters to the editor published in 10 national news magazines were examined in this study. Letters to the editor from news magazine readers were studied because these letters come from all parts of the country. In any given issue of a national news magazine such as Time, letters might appear from readers from Bangor to Honolulu and nearly all points in between. As a result, magazine readers can and do engage in a nationwide discussion of issues rather than parochial conversations about regional issues. Since news magazines usually come out weekly or monthly, the information in them tends to summarize and reflect on longer trends than TV or newspapers generally do. This same reflective quality is likely true in letters to the editors - that is, magazine editors who are trained to seek out articles that reflect larger national trends may be inclined to print letters that are also more reflective of large issues. Further, news magazines tend to give more space to more letters to the editor than newspapers and allow those letters to run longer.
One driving purpose of this research is to find out how many published letters discussed journalism, what letter writers said about the press, and whether there were any recurring themes. A further goal is to discover whether public discussion about the press changed over the 30-year period. To answer these questions this research examined all the letters printed in 10 popular news magazines - a total of 15,045 letters. Out of this group, the letters that discussed journalism - 3,689 - were analyzed in greater detail. The purpose is to add some historical context to the ongoing conversation about journalism by magazine readers. Theoretical Concept Journalism historian Hazel Dicken-Garcia argues such study is needed because most media ethics literature lacks historical perspective. Further, the voice of the audience speaking about journalism standards in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s has been almost entirely missing from journalism history. This current research is built in large part on the conceptual or theoretical framework established by Dicken-Garcia. She studied journalistic standards between 1800 and 1900 by reading scores of newspaper editorials and letters to the editor in England and America. Of particular relevance is her stated desire to find out whether letters to the editor in the past have discussed such journalistic topics as telling the truth and sensationalism and whether such discussion changed over time. This current research takes Dicken-Garcia's questions and applies them to magazine letters to the editor published in 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992. Limitations Even as this examination of published letters to the editor is undertaken, however, it must first be admitted that the historical study of such letters offers many challenges. For example, the letters do not reflect the entire public conversation about journalism that took place in the past. But as journalism historian David Nord writes, letters to the editor provide a record of at least a portion of the ongoing conversation of a community. It is also true that letters are filtered through editor/gatekeepers, who may or may not screen out letters about the media. This study makes no assumptions about the extent of such editorial influence in the selection of letters to the editor. Rather, it focuses on published letters to the editor as historical artifacts. These letters represent what readers saw in print. Simply by being published in a magazine's pages the letters to the editor helped set the agenda for public discussion. The historical record of published letters to the editor can and does reflect some ideas of the population at large, especially those literate enough to express their views in writing. Nord describes letters to the editor as useful historical texts because they reveal some readers speaking directly to - and often shouting at - editors. Unlike other magazine readers who remain silent, those whose letters to the editor were published at least left a permanent and public account of their opinions of journalistic standards of the time. Nord argues that a historical examination of letters to the editor can give us what we may need most to construct a history of readership; that is, a glimpse into the past of some readers reacting to content. Nord is not alone in this observation. Mark Popovich and others have called for more study about how magazine readers respond to content. Popovich writes that there is little study of the "strength of the relationship readers may have with magazines"; and "Without that kind of information we have a poor perspective on the role magazines play in our society today." Another magazine historian, Lee Jolliffe, observes there is a scarcity of research into audience reaction to magazine content. Jolliffe asserts that studies of magazine audiences are needed to "show the exchange of influences between the editor, the magazine text, the audience and society." Looking at letters to the editors in magazines and comparing the themes and numbers from different points in time can be a step toward the depth of research Nord, Jolliffe, and Popovich call for. Moreover, such a study can help researchers understand more about magazine readers and how those readers relate to different publications - and how that relationship may have changed over a period of years. The letter writers were and remain a literate, opinionated, and highly visible portion of the population. Published letters to the editor offer a significant view into a limited but influential world. One researcher described letters to the editor as "more than a hot readership item . . . and more than an access mechanism. It's a regional institution, combining some of the elements of the town meeting, the rural party line, the loafers' bench on the courthouse square and the continuing referendum." Why Consider 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992? The time periods were initially selected for this study for several reasons. First, 1972 was chosen because it was the year the Watergate scandal began to unfold after five men were arrested June 17 for breaking into the Democratic national headquarters in Washington, D.C. Soon after that the role of the press in uncovering possible presidential wrongdoing began to be discussed all across the country. Was the press out to get the president? Were journalists reporting the news or creating it? Was all this talk of corruption just the work of biased muckrakers? It was almost impossible to avoid these kinds of questions during this presidential election year. As a result it seems a fertile time for people to have written letters to the editor and discussed journalism. But to put 1972 findings in perspective it seemed logical to compare letters from 10 years before that - that is 1962 - to see if 1972 represented an anomaly in public letter writing about journalism. Some historians and politicians suggest the public was less skeptical of the press in the '60s; a good way to test this hypothesis was to look at how many letters were published about the press in 1962 and what those letters said. Letters to the editor printed in 1982 were then selected for comparison - to offer the perspective of a decade removed from the passion of Watergate. Would letters to the editor still reflect as much heat and emotion about the press and its journalistic standards eight years after Richard Nixon had finally been forced out of office? The study set out to answer this question by looking at a year that also saw interest soar in journalistic ethics, both in academia and in the larger society. Many new books on the topic of journalistic ethics were printed during this time. Furthermore, many new college courses on the topic of journalistic ethics were added to the curriculum, and centers dedicated entirely to the study of media ethics were established. As a result, studying letters to the editor from 1982 seemed particularly attractive: Was all the talk about media ethics by professionals reflected in letters from consumers of news - the readers? Finally 1992 was selected for study as another 10-year benchmark period simply because it was once again a presidential election year. The press was once more involved in covering another scandal involving a presidential candidate - this time the Democratic contender, accused of having an adulterous affair. Journalistic ethics once again came to the forefront in this matter as many people wondered how intently - and to what extent - the press should cover the personal lives of politicians. Literature Review There is a small but steadily growing body of material surrounding the historical study of letters to the editor. Thematically the research about letters to the editor can be largely divided into three categories: 1) The hazards of trying to ascertain public opinion with certainty through letters to the editor; 2) Conjecture about who writes letters; and 3) Discussion of why people feel compelled to write letters to the editor. Category one, public opinion: Schulyer Foster Jr. writes that most letters to the editor are negative or against something or somebody, be it war, the New Deal or gambling. As a result, Foster argues that such negative letters can't accurately measure public opinion. In keeping with that argument, James Cockrum asserts that letters nearly always react to stories covered but rarely initiate discussion of new issues; this adds to the unreliability of letters as a measure of public opinion. That unreliability is also explored by David L. Grey and Trevor Brown, who argue that published letters in presidential elections are more likely measures of the gatekeepers' politics rather than the views of the electorate. Category two, writer identity: William D. Tarrant, who studied Eugene (Oregon) Register-Guard letter writers, hypothesizes that regular writers are wealthier, better educated, less mobile and more religious than average citizens. Also exploring the identity of letter writers, Sidney Forsythe's 1950 study found the average age of those who write letters to the editor was 59; he concludes that most letter writers are white, male, at least third- or fourth-generation Americans, with above-average education, holding down white-collar jobs. In contrast, Gary Vacin found in a 1965 study that letter writers come from a wide range of occupations. In a further examination of letter writers, Emmett Buell argues that the writers are too often dismissed as kooks, but in reality are not significantly different from the general population; however, David Hill describes letter writers as mostly Republican, conservative and negative. Despite his disclaimer about the bias of most letter writers, Hill uses letters as a way to measure public sentiment about the Equal Rights Amendment. Category three, reasons for writing: In their examination of why people write letters to the editor, Hal Davis and Galen Rarick argue that one of the main functions of letters to the editor is to give the irate, infuriated and irritated a place to vent. A 1966 study of published letter-writers in Michigan, undertaken by John Klempner, offered nine reasons why people write letters to the editor: 1.To make someone see the light; 2.To promote one's self; 3.To right a wrong; 4. Having been asked; 5. Enjoyment of writing; 6. Feeling one had to write; 7. A sense of public duty; 8. To increase self-esteem; and 9. For therapeutic benefits. In keeping with this finding, Byron Lander argues that letters to the editor function as a safety valve, allowing readers a "catharsis to blow off steam in an unreasoned and emotional way." Further, additional news coverage of certain events prompts letters, as Steve Pasternak and Suraj Kapoor assert in a 1980 article. The authors write that there was a "dramatic increase" in letters to the editor in the 1970s because of increased coverage of "letter generating topics" such as abortion, Watergate, gun control and the Vietnam war. David Pritchard and Dan Berkowitz, in a 1991 article, using a random selection of 10 newspapers, tested the hypothesis that attention to crime in letters to the editor influences subsequent front-page coverage of crime. These authors, however, have not attempted to systematically track letters to the editor in selected news magazines over a recent 30-year period as a way to gauge some history of public discussion of journalism and see if or how it may change. Method The magazines examined in this research were: Atlantic; Forbes; Harper's; Life; The Nation; New Republic; Newsweek; The Progressive; Time; and U.S. News and World Report. (The magazine selection process will be explained shortly.) All letters to the editor published in these 10 popular news magazines in 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992 - a total of 15,045 letters - were examined. Any letters that discussed journalism - a total of 3,689 - were then analyzed in more depth. To be labeled as a letter about journalism, a letter simply needed to discuss what a writer thought was good or bad reporting or complain or praise the news media in some way. For example, a letter that said "We have to look at mass media as an instrument to stir and provoke society," was considered a letter about journalistic standards. Or if a letter suggested that, for example, "your magazine is participating in the despicable practice of our modern press community, first to build up a man to celebrity proportions and then to dump him with complete disregard for truth," that too, was considered a letter about journalistic standards. In sum, if a letter mentioned the news media in any way, positive or negative, it was considered part of the discussion of journalism. As a test of coder reliability, all the 1962 letters were double-coded by two separate researchers to determine if the letters were about journalism. The results were then compared and coders agreed on all but four letters – these letters were then dropped from the study. How The Magazines Were Selected The 10 magazines studied here represent a cross-section of the magazine field, ranging from the conservative business publication, Forbes, to the left-wing Nation. As a result, mainstream magazines with large circulations, such as Time and Newsweek, which each week sell 4 million and 3 million copies, respectively, were studied. Then for a different perspective, considerably smaller and more specialized publications such as The Progressive, which sells only 40,000 copies a month, and The Nation, which sells roughly 80,000 copies a month, were also examined. More information about how each magazine was selected is explained in the accompanying footnote. Once the letters about journalism were collected, every letter was analyzed to determine its theme. Nine thematic categories emerged as readers "constructed" journalism in their remarks, describing in their own words the functions they thought the press should serve. Thus these categories were derived from readers' comments. The categories include truth telling, objectivity, fairness, public service, moral force, sensationalism, free press, trust, and political non-partisanship. Each letter to the editor could be and often was coded more than once if it discussed more than one journalistic theme. Once more, coder reliability was tested here by having two people code the themes of the 1962 letters – and they agreed on the thematic classification. A final classification was then performed on the letters with each journalism letter put into either a positive or negative column, depending on whether the overall message congratulated or attacked the press. Findings: Dwindling Letters about Journalism In 1962 the 10 magazines published a total of 3,661 letters to the editor - and 2,445, or 66 percent, commented on journalism. (See Table 1A). In 1972 journalism was discussed in 956 letters out of 3,727 - or 25 percent of the published letters. In comparison, in 1982 the 10 magazines printed a total of 170 letters to the editor about journalism - out of a total of 3,943 published letters. That means journalism was discussed in only 4 percent of all the letters published that year. Finally, in 1992, journalism was the subject of 114 letters out of a total of 3,693 published letters to the editor - roughly 3 percent of the total. This means that within 30 years the number of published letters to the editor discussing journalistic standards in the 10 news magazines decreased by more than 95 percent (declining from 66 percent to 3 percent). Table 1A.-Total letters & percent related to journalism, 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992
Findings: Increasing Number of Negative Letters Even as the number of journalism letters rapidly declined from 1962 to 1992 both the number and percentage of negative letters about journalism increased dramatically. (See Table 1B below.) In 1962, for example, only 47 percent of the 2,445 published letters about journalism were negative. But by 1992 93 percent of the 114 journalism letters were negative, complaining about how the press was not fair, not accurate and not objective, among other deficiencies.
Table 1B.-Negative v. positive journalism letters, 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992
(All percentages have been rounded off) Findings: Shifting Themes While complaining or negative letters moved in only one direction -upwards - the leading themes reflected in the letters varied widely over the decades. Table 2, for example, shows public service was the most frequently expressed theme of published letters to the editor about journalism in 1962 - mentioned in 52 percent of the 1962 letters, or 1,295 letters out of 2,445 letters. In contrast with this public service theme, objectivity was the most common theme of 1992 letters - the focus of 35 percent of the printed letters that discussed journalism, or 40 out of 114 letters. In the interests of brevity a more detailed explanation of only the top five themes of the journalism letters - as these themes were suggested by the letters themselves - follows below. Table 2-Themes, numbers & percent, 1962 Themes
(One letter can and often did contain more than one theme. In this case there are 2,948 themes mentioned in 2,445 letters.) Table 3-Themes, numbers & percent, 1972 Themes
(Note that one letter can and often did contain more than one theme. In this case there are 983 themes contained in 956 letters.) Table 4-Themes, numbers and percentages, 1982 Themes
(Note that one letter can and often did contain more than one theme. In this case there are 184 themes contained in 170 letters.) Table 5-Themes, numbers and percentages, 1992 Themes
(Note that one letter can and often did contain more than one theme. In this case there are 138 themes contained in 114 letters.) Public Service Public service was generally defined by letter writers as the willingness of a publication to "instruct, to teach us how to be good citizens and to bring beauty and intelligent reporting into our homes," as one Life magazine reader wrote in 1962. Public service was further defined as journalistic excellence, provided without fear or favor and without concern for financial gain. When readers came upon stories with depth and perspective, demonstrating extreme accuracy and sparking interest, they often commented on the story's public service. For example, Martha Poling, of Circleville, Ohio, commended Life in 1962 for serving its readers well and teaching them about the economy. "Millions of words have been written about what is wrong with the economy. Yet in a few memorable lines you were able to pinpoint our major problems and offer workable solutions. It is time the American people demand more such journalistic honesty and integrity." Gloria Bond of New York City took a similar tone, commending the public service provided by Life magazine through its willingness to print photos by the "Negro" photographer Gordon Parks. "His splendid eye-catching high fashion pictures in color, not only enhanced Life but gave many readers a refreshing lift. The lovely Negro models prove that pulchritude is not possessed exclusively by one race. You have taught us a great lesson in race relations." Objectivity Each letter-to-the-editor writer defined objectivity a little differently. But as a group, the letters about objectivity agreed that this ideal called for reporters to purge themselves of prejudices and biases. And in 1992 most letter writers complained that they rarely saw objectivity in practice. A 1992 letter seemed to sum up this point when Nashville letter writer W. Scott Benton wrote that "I am frustrated and concerned that in a time of constant media attacks against everyone and anyone, an unbiased report is rare if not impossible to find." Another 1992 letter said male editors don't understand that "date rape is not an insignificant, foolish issue." But the letter asserted that editors encourage women reporters to write as much. "The lesson: Women journalists can go far if they adopt this attitude in their writing and attack feminism." Letter writers repeatedly expressed their disappointment over a perceived lack of objectivity on many subjects in 1992, when complaints about objectivity seemed to blossom in nearly every issue of the 10 magazines studied. Here are a few examples: "It is clear you suffer from a male bias. Although I opted for breast implants, I am not a bimbo or a Stepford wife, and I resent your name-calling. With these erroneous and cruel labels you deny the essence of femininity, compassion, understanding and the capacity to nurture." That is what Ann Grossman of Yardley, Pennsylvania, wrote in a 1992 letter to Newsweek. Robert Gonsalves of Crockett, California, wrote that Newsweek starts with a premise and then proceeds to prove it, without studying the facts objectively: "I'm getting tired of Newsweek's unprofessional preemptive strike against any conspiracy theorists. You dissuade people from investigating the evidence and thinking for themselves." In addition to the previously discussed themes of public service and objectivity - the number one themes in 1962 and 1992, respectively - a total of seven other themes emerged from the letters. To keep this research brief, only three more of the most significant themes - truth telling, fairness and moral force - are discussed in more detail below. Truth Telling Truth-telling letters were straightforward in their complaints about the press. An example of this clear-cut discussion is a 1982 letter in the Progressive that said: "Your December cover story on garbage was strewn with half-truths, marvelously misleading statements, and soft-headed analysis. It is the silliest story on resource recovery that I have seen in my five years working in resource recovery. Let me try to straighten things out." A letter in Atlantic magazine in 1972 asserted simply that a reporter for the magazine had trouble grasping basic facts - this time, geography. "Has your Mr. Manning changed the course of the Potomac? Or has he simply neglected to look at a map? He writes ('In the City of Power,' December, 1971) that: 'the fetid section of Virginia that George Washington chose as the cite for the Federal City of the new republic is today a somewhat cosmopolitan and, in places, beautiful city.' He obviously refers to Washington. But what is now the District of Columbia was never part of Virginia; in colonial times it was in Maryland." Fairness Fairness was defined broadly by letter writers as a willingness to print many points of view about a given issue. A New Republic reader put the discussion of fairness this way in a 1992 letter, saying the magazine "takes the cake for publishing one of the most outright blasphemous, racist and unfair articles to date . . . If you ever bother to balance your articles with what some of the rest of us have to say . . . for once you'll be honest journalists." Bruce Joyce of Columbia University put the discussion of fairness this way in a 1972 letter to Harper's: "That you permitted the publication of an unabashed selection of wholly negative evidence [about the effects of early education] is totally unfair and hard to understand." Joyce's comments seemed to be echoed some 10 years later in a letter in the same magazine by William Brady, of Little Rock, Arkansas who said "I am utterly and frankly amazed that your magazine, any respectable magazine, would actually print such an unfair piece of work. One might expect such one-sided treatment from the National Enquirer or the like. But readers of Harper's deserve better." Moral Force The number of letters about the the role of the press as a moral force was never high. But discussion of the topic was lively. Here is an example: "It is unlikely that Time would present a cover story on the latest trend in male physiques as it did with women in 'The New Ideal of Beauty.' By printing such an article Time acts as a moral leader and perpetuates society's ideal that a woman's appearance has a lot to do with her worth as a human being," wrote Ann Kelly, of Manlius, New York. Irvin Cady, of Alpena, Michigan, wrote in 1972 that Atlantic magazine should consider what moral lessons it was teaching when it printed article that used "vulgar words." The story could have been printed "in a more subtle manner and it would have been just as interesting without the so-called avant-garde phraseology; in other words, just plain smut," Cady wrote. Discussion In sum, these findings offer strong primary evidence that the most popular themes of printed letters to the editor in the 10 magazines changed from 1962 to 1992, from a concern with public service to a concern with objectivity. Thus, in 1962 most published letters to the editor about journalism discussed how the magazines were performing a public service by shedding light on a particular problem and educating the public about a situation that needed to be rectified. That same public service theme was still predominant in 1972, but the second most common refrain that year was that reporters could not get their facts straight, either as a result of carelessness or reckless indifference. The message about inaccuracies and a lack of truth became the dominant theme of the published letters in 1982. But by 1992 there was a slightly different spin: Letter writers were still angry about inaccuracies, but now 35 percent were saying that because of a variety of built-in biases and prejudices the reporters were incapable of ever discovering or telling the truth: Reporters were male-biased, or too conservative, or not ethnic enough or too anti-religious, readers said - and there was little chance that this lack of objectivity could or would ever change. In addition to revealing these themes and the fact that they changed over a 30-year period, this research shows that the number of published letters to the editor about journalism in 10 magazines declined substantially from 1962 to 1992 - down from 2,445, or 66 percent of the total, to 114 letters, or 3 percent of the total. A cynic might dismiss this decrease, saying it merely reflects editors censoring comments about journalism. But an important point to keep in mind is that the research presented here analyzed any letters about journalism - positive or negative. If editors were manipulating letters to the editor for 30 years, they would likely print positive letters and delete negative ones. The historical record uncovered here, however, shows no overwhelming flood of positive letters about journalism - only 7 percent of the letters were positive in 1992, for instance, while 93 percent were negative. And even though complaints vastly outnumbered letters of praise in both 1982 and 1992 there was only a mere trickle of any journalism letters during that same period - 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively. Dicken-Garcia's ground-breaking study of letters to the editors in the 19th century found readers in the 1800s actively engaged in many discussions of journalistic standards. Readers acting as press critics of the era began to grapple with the meaning of journalism in society, she writes, and to ask hard questions about appropriate journalistic boundaries of conduct. The research presented here establishes that this robust debate of journalistic standards declined precipitously from 1962 to 1992 - at least in the 10 popular magazines surveyed. Could the Internet account for declining published debate about journalism in magazines? This scenario, suggested by some critics, seems unlikely, given the time period studied here -1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992. In 1962 and 1972 there was no Internet access for the average person. And then between 1982 and 1992 this new medium was still in its infancy. It involved only a fraction of the American population. A reviewer of an early draft of this research suggested this paper is actually a gatekeeper study revealing only what editors were willing to publish about their own product. So be it. Until now the historical record of published letters in magazines has been unexamined. No one has known what letters published in magazines have said about journalism, and whether the letters have increased, decreased or stayed the same over the past 30 years. The decrease of published letters discussing the news media in all 10 contemporary magazines over a 30-year period suggests readers may have lost interest in journalism and simply wrote less commentary on the subject. It is easy to simply say no one writes letters anymore. But that assertion does not explain the average of 50,000 letters to the editor received each year at Time magazine. The evidence from this research into the thematic content of the contemporary letters suggests that many of today's magazine readers write letters to the editor, but on subjects other than the press. And the 3,693 letters to the editor printed in 1992 in the 10 magazines studies strongly support this notion. The total number of published letters in the magazines barely changed from 1962, when 3,661 letters were printed. Declining journalism letters may indicate a growing public alienation from the press. This sense of alienation permeates the published letters in 1992. As might be expected, many readers in 1962, 1972 and 1982 expressed anger at the press, especially when reporters couldn't seem to get basic data correct, such as the location of a river or the business track record of a prominent Wall Street investor. But by 1992, even though complaints about the press are dominant, with 93 percent of the letters unhappy with journalism, it's important to remember that only 114 letters in total discuss journalism, compared to 2,445 letters on the topic in 1962. The declining conversation about journalism drives home another underlying theme of alienation evident in the letters: All the readers, even press advocates, generally seem detached and mildly disappointed in their letters, expressing the notion that the press didn't get things right, but that nothing more can be expected from biased journalists. This pessimistic, cynical and detached view of the press is a far cry from the criticism one might expect to hear if readers truly believed in journalism and were concerned to find instances of failure. The reader alienation from journalism uncovered in this research may actually be more difficult for journalists to overcome - in much the same way marriage counselors say a marriage is through, not when angry words are spoken, but when there is no longer any talk at all. It is hard to repair a relationship if couples no longer even bother to try to communicate. The historical record of published magazine letters to the editor from 1962 to 1992 indicate readers may care less about journalism than they did 30 years ago. As a result, if this trend is continuing, the marriage between journalists and readers may be in serious trouble. Conclusion Further research should seek to explore the meaning of the steady decline in journalistic discussion in magazine letters to the editor in more detail as well as the increasingly negative tone of the letters and move toward definitive explanations. Nord says more audience studies are needed. "We don't need more philosophy, not more theory about audience activity or passivity," he writes, "but rather more empirical research, research that links actual readers with texts and historical and social contexts." This research argues for the historical importance of letters to the editor. The absence of material in journalism history books on letters to the editor and what they reflect about journalism is an oversight begging for correction. Inclusion of such material in journalism history could add to the continuing debate over journalistic standards and the role of the press. In the process of looking at the historical record of letters to the editor, this research may contribute to a deeper understanding of audience reaction to journalism in the past. Such knowledge can contribute to a greater awareness of how the reader-magazine relationship has changed over time. Rather than relying on secondary sources and assumptions about what magazine readers have said about journalism in history, researchers need to find the voice of the public, some of it expressed in letters to the editor, and include that in journalism's historical record. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Journal of Magazine and New Media Research © 1999 All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
