Do People Still Write Letters To The Editor?
from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
I had a somewhat surreal experience a month ago. Out of the blue I received an email from someone from Rolling Stone magazine, saying that they wanted to know if I wanted to write a letter to the editor about an article in the upcoming issue -- and if I was interested they would ship me a copy of the magazine overnight. There were a bunch of things about this that didn't make any sense. First, they solicit letters to the editor?!? I had no idea. Second, they would overnight me a copy of the physical magazine? Just send me a digital copy. Finally, if I have something to say, I'm much more likely to just say it here than compose a "letter to the editor." The whole thing was so confusing that I emailed back to make sure that they were serious, and to ask if they always solicit letters to the editor. I didn't hear back for a bit, but a week later, a woman emailed back and said that they sometimes solicit letters from people to go along with the general letters they just get (she also pointed me to a URL since the article had been published in the interim, and there was no longer any need to overnight the magazine).However, since then I've been thinking about what an out-of-date concept the whole "letter to the editor" is, so it comes as little surprise that Vice magazine skipped the Letters to the Editor this month, instead posting a whining rant online about how they don't get real letters any more:
You know what? No letters page this month. You know why? Because we aren't receiving enough real letters. We mainly get emails now, and people don't think when they write emails. They just pump them out, which makes them hard to reply to. We sat here and looked at like 50 emails we've gotten in the last couple days and it was really depressing. It's like trying to come back to a burp or a fart. What can you say? "Nice fart"? "Subpar belch, but try again"?I guess if that were the situation, I could see going out and soliciting better Letters to the Editor as well, but the fact is the whole Letters to the Editor concept seems pretty antiquated at this point. It was based on the premise that the magazine publishers and editors were the gatekeepers of the content, and if you didn't like it, you could potentially get your say in -- but only if they chose your comment out of a pile of others, and then it would likely be edited down anyway. It wasn't a conversation. It wasn't participation. It was letting the riff raff have their carefully moderated say as filler.
And we used to get great letters. They would arrive in decorated envelopes along with goofy little tokens, tchotchkes, gizmos, and gifts inside -- even cheap stuff like newspaper clippings or a photo or a drawing was nice. Now we just get retarded fucking emails...
Of course, this sort of thinking can still be found in certain media industry folks who still pine for those "good old days" when people didn't really talk back. Witness a recent column in Toronto's Globe and Mail where the author trots out the tired complaints about bloggers that went out of style in 2004. It's the usual stuff about how most blogging is crappy, and how dare the riff raff think that they have a voice:
And now there is blogging, and comments. Readers may take 30 seconds to post a comment on a story or blog item that a writer dashed off in a minute. On The Globe website, our slogan is "Join the Conversation," but in the blogosphere, what follows isn't usually a conversation but a brief, ungrammatical shouting match. You can have more pensive chats in a bar fight.There's also some nonsense about how people only have a finite number of things to say, and therefore you should save it for important publications like a magazine or a newspaper. In other words, please shut up and let us go back to telling you what's important. And then these old school media types wonder why we don't want to participate under their rules?
And journalism wasn't meant to be a conversation, anyway. It was maybe a monologue, at its most democratic a carefully constructed dialogue. If readers didn't like or agree with the monologues in paper A, they bought paper B. What was most important about their opinions was that they thought enough to spend the coin.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: conversation, gatekeepers, journalism, letters to the editor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You should have written in, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed, in fact you could have CC'd to them this post as your "letter to the editor". Even if they didn't print it, I'm sure it would still get them to think about what they are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letters in General
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Letters in General
When you're sittingf with a friend over coffee, you don't ramble on and on and on, one-sided; you say a few lines and they respond and you reply and the conversation grows like that. The 'problem' is that email and blogging are making letters and 'news' more like regular conversations that we all have all the time. There's nothing sad about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO, yeah, there's gate keepers, and there always will be, because people seek somewhere to go with some of the average drivel removed. Not that those places won't let in occasional drivel or have bad writing wholly there own, but yeah, it's a little better overall. And as long as those sorts of placess exist, letters to editor will still matter. Consider them "filtered comments" if you prefer. This place is better than most, but what percentage of the comments here are worth reading?
I agree with you the idea of solicited letters to the editor is a bit silly though. They should just be honest about it and pay you to write a column, or one half of one if it required a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the difference in solicition a letter to the editor amd soliciting a posting here?
What is the difference in making a false letter to the editor and in making a false posting here?
None except for the speed of delivery and the cost of delivery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letters to the editor... UK stylee
RE letters to the editor
I know it's a bit outdated overall, and I know how email has more or less supplanted the letter in today's day and age, but I also know of one publication for which getting a letter printed is a matter of some prestige, and indeed, difficulty. Yet they still regularly print letters.
I speak of that well known UK broadsheet, The Times.
For residents of the UK that still read said publication, having a letter actually printed there is as much of an ambition in itself as it is a forum for getting a point of view across. In fact, there are certain "rules" that your transcript must follow before it will even be considered for publication. Actually managing to get into the paper's letters page is to become a member of an altogether elite and indeed exclusive club. (I speak with a certain amount of experience of this; one of the members of my family has somehow managed to have two letters printed to date, wheras others, through no small effort of their own, have yet to be mentioned).
Of course, while the whole concept is becoming outdated through no small fault of the progress of technology and time, it must be accepted that the majority of consumers no longer see having something in print as being an achievement, especially when the simplicity of having something posted to a website is as quick as commenting here. But still, the tradition of "Letter to the editor" continues.
Yours sincerely,
Khromm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Letters to the editor... UK stylee
Re: Letters to the Editor, 23rd Aug 2008.
Khromm,
Bottom right, check mate...
Yours sincerely,
Twotimer
London
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letter to the eidtor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letters or email, doesn't matter--ease does
Usually people who will spend their time writing a letter are motivated to do so and will likely be able to glue together some coherent thoughts so that an editor can clean it up and post the good bits in a letter page.
Those same letter writers also send email, but there are more people sending emails, posting to blogs and forums that the signal to noise is much lower. It only seems that no one writes letter anymore when all you get is drivel.
What the Toronto Globe and Mail needs to figure out is why no one is writing anymore. Perhaps it's their content that isn't resonating with readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Letters or email, doesn't matter--ease does
Personally, I do not buy it. The people that rip off an email without cooling down or thinking are the same ones that would have banged out a sloppy, illegible letter that would have gotten wadded up for the garbage bin 3-pointer.
It still comes down to people not taking the time to think about what they are creating before hitting that 'Send' button or 'Submit' link. That is where the frustration really begins, but again, we're dealing with printed media, and we've seen again and again how they react to such things as the 'interwebs.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Letters or email, doesn't matter--ease does
That's exactly the point. For every letter worth reading, there are probably dozens of ill-thought-out rants that the writer decided a few hours later weren't worth the envelope or postage or the walk down to the corner postbox to send. It's self-filtering. The incoherent rants still get written, but for the most part only the ones worth reading get sent.
In the case of email they rant, click send, and the editor has to wade through the crap looking for something worth printing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Letters or email, doesn't matter--ease does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
Those little, bitty things called "radio" and "television" just aren't very big, are they? But wait, that would undermine your argument, wouldn't it? Better forget about them then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
But if we include them, we include Howard Stern and HBO and all kinds of books, and it becomes five out of six mediums where it's perfectly acceptable language for adults to use, read, and hear.
And if people don't like to hear it, or don't like thier kids to hear it, they should change the station, put down the book or magazine, or click the big red 'x' in the upper right hand corner of the screen.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
Magazines and newspapers are available by private subscription services. For that matter, you have to pay for books and, for the most part, the Internet. It costs to be able to read and see all of those mediums. Nice strawman you knocked down there.
As for the 'consenting adults' bit, that's your second strawman. I never restricted the definition of acceptable language to be language available to children and neither did you - until your argument falls farther. Good try, though. Kids should drink milk but it doesn't mean that adults can't drink soda.
Remember that big red 'x', though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
Huh? I can hear those words in church and they sure don't compare to what can be heard on the Howard Stern Show or HBO. So what's you point? Are you trying to backtrack?
And the public display of some of what can be found there would be a criminal offense violating community standards. Again, that's not exactly what I would call "perfectly acceptable".
You should learn what words mean before you start using them. Click here. The argument that what can be found on Howard Stern, HBO, and in "all kinds" of books constitute what is publicly acceptable was your argument, not mine and so I'm knocking your argument down, not mine. But why let the truth get in the way, eh Rose?
No, it is pointing out that "all kinds of books" includes those (adults only) which are not "any public medium", as you tried to characterize them. Again, no straw man there. Only your own weak argument falling down.
You said "any public medium". The last time I checked the public included children. So yes, you did include children, no straw man there either. That's the thing about a forum where you can't go back and change what you wrote earlier, Rose, everyone can look right up above and see it. You may convince yourself otherwise, but good luck with the rest of us.
Hey, here's an idea. Maybe newspapers could boost their dwindling subscription rates by including hardcore porno sections! After all, it's on the internet so it must be "perfectly acceptable". People who don't like it could just turn past those pages. They could even put red X's on the corners of those page to help the easily offended identify and skip them! (that's sarcasm, Rose)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
We were discussing acceptable language, specifially whether or not the language in the original blog post was acceptable. I did not say that all kinds of language everywhere were acceptable. As a matter of fact, I mentioned one form of language that is not generally acceptable, although it can be found in books, magazines, and television, although probably not the radio or in newspapers.
The argument that what can be found on Howard Stern, HBO, and in "all kinds" of books constitute what is publicly acceptable was your argument, not mine and so I'm knocking your argument down, not mine.
No, actually, you stated that it wasn't acceptable anywhere else and that meant it wasn't acceptable here. I refuted your argument by stating that it is more acceptable than not in the places you said it wasn't.
Public means 'exposed to the general view' and 'a place accessible or visible to the public'. That means that any book or magazine that can be found in a Borders at the mall (another public place), any website that can be easily found on the Internet (I would say any site not password protected or otherwise hidden), or any channel that you can find on a television, is exposed to the general view and accesible and visible to the public, and is therefore a public medium.
If you look at the words in the original post, you can also find them in almost every other public medium that your and I have been able to think of. Therefore, by your argument, it is acceptable language.
And newspapers could certainly do so, in places where it is legal to do so. I don't read paper news reports and won't until they include items of interest to me, such as local news and calendars. However, I'm certain that they would boost thier rates if they did. However, I'm in Oklahoma, so you can't find hardcore pornography, which is a shame because it means that Texas gets all of the pornography revenue and Oklahoma misses out.
I believe that newspapers should be able to print whatever they like. After all, no one is making you purchase it or read it. And I'm much more offended by your high-handedness than I would be by a 5x7 of a donkey fucking a college girl in the ass. So it goes to show that what's acceptable varies from person to person and if you don't want to see things that offend you, you should refrain from purchasing or viewing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
Now that's just not true, Rose. Again anyone can just look right up above to see what was actually said. You know what they call people who don't tell the truth, don't you? And if you're not going to be truthful then there's really not much point in debating you.
Well, your idea of "perfectly acceptable" is certainly different from mine. Is that the kind of "perfectly acceptable" material your kids are looking at when they're not busy abusing other kids at school (for their own good, of course)?
Like I said, Rose, your dishonesty tends to make me think you're not worth responding to anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the the-conversation-has-changed dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship?
I've written a half dozen "letters to the editor" to the local newspapers (all sent by email, not US Mail), all critical of the newspaper's editorial page position, and 4 out of 6 of these opposing letters have been published.
The local papers specifically state that they print supportive/opposing letters in approximately the ratio they receive, and most of the letters they print tend to be people critical of their position, probably because that is a stronger motivation to write in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're glossing over a key issue
But it would be great if we could start exploring methods of sharing these opinions that encourage more constructive conversations. Perhaps one nice thing about letters to the editor is that people reading them would get to see reasonably well thought out expressions of opinion. Now most of those are buried under heaps of vitriol and barely understandable prose.
I'm not suggesting the substitution of one gateway over another, but perhaps there are ways to evolve the current collaboration and communication frameworks to encourage more reasoned discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're glossing over a key issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sunday, Nov 7, 2004, the last day I bought a newpaper
The newspaper just before the 2004 elections.
The "AJC" had published their official recommendations for who they want to win the 2004 elections. And among the list is Cynthia McKinney.
She is a racist and the worst kind of politician. Her and her father indited on election fraud. She panders. When she does not win, she cries foul, fraud.
The AJC knew all of this and still felt it was a good recommendation to support a racist pandering politician.
I never look behind me, my troubles will be few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're totally missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're totally missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're totally missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're totally missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letter
No,
Yours sincerely,
Mr Angry
London
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That might be the reason why companies rather just get an e-mail than give you their address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letters to editor button on most sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation
In other words, it was a moderated forum. A practice that still continues even today. Even TechDirt, I imagine, moderates comments threads and removes excessive profanity, off-topic posts, blatant advertisements, and so on.
Editing is necessary when you have a limited amount of space. And when you want to eliminate the significant content that may be of interest to your readers from the background noise.
In fact, from a certain perspective TechDirt still does a variation of the same exact thing today, in that Mike will occasionally respond to well-considered comments and positions, and completely ignores the comments that are for all intents and purposes "noise" (RIAA suckz!) that contribute little to the conversation.
And I expect that the Vice editors are complaining about too few of the former and too many of the later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of editing...
Even an online publication like TechDirt has a limited amount of space, time, and viewer attention. And can afford to squander little of it.
Gatekeepers, indeed. Or if you prefer a more literary quote, "The more things change..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fits In Well With Moronic Corporations
I cannot for the life of me see the difference between the contents of an email I send, and a letter I would have sent previous to internet life, except that the emails should be more readable as editing is easier with word processing as opposed to a pen. And the 'journalism' (whatever that means) is probably as poor on one as on the other.
My only thought beyond this is that maybe this outfit mentioned published letters on the basis of the pretty flower stickers and garbage, and not content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We at TechDirt wholeheartedly thank you for your thoughtful and somewhat asinine response. While it's difficult to discern if the "Powers That Be" you accepted in your life have provided you with gifts of "Deadpan Humor" we've decided to ask you to chill out for at least 14 days.
Should you believe you have said gifts, please continue commenting. However, understand that future comments will be judged against the works of late 1998+ Jerry Seinfeld, as that seems to be the comedic standard of the current day.
Best Regards,
The people who create half-assed comments at TechDirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Censorship and Anthrax
I know of three regional newspapers which very rarely print opposing opinions and when they do the letters are so poor that they shouldn't have been printed. The papers weren't always this way, but that changed after they were bought out by the same company. Now their news, and especially their opinion pages, are slanted ala Fox News.
@AC in post #21 - Anthrax? You work for the Bush Administration or the RNC don't ya? Gotta keep pushing that non-existant threat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In practice, however, it is easy to see a difference. A quick visit to YouTube and a perusal of the contents will show a somewhat lower average quality. Somehow, the ladder of coherency starts with "txting," then unsigned comments on various forums, next posts attached to one's name, then blog posts, and perhaps ending at the paper letter.
Again, I speak in the broadest sense. I am probably the only person I know who strains to appropriately use capitalization and punctuation in a text message. I have been sent paper letters that might have been composed by a second grader. Still, when one deals with thousands of missives, generalities are not only applicable, but crucial.
This effect is not limited to communication. The saying goes that one can write FORTRAN in any programming language, but in reality, we see certain cultures spring up around each programming language. It does not surprise me in the least that differing methods of communication attract different levels of writing. "It's just text" is not an approach which maps well to reality.
It is not merely that the price of a stamp closes the spam loophole; the additional effort of composing, printing, folding, stuffing, stamping, and mailing seems to act as a filter excluding those who want to grunt out support or disapproval.
In fact, if the newspapers, magazines, and other monthlies want to continue (and I think they do), becoming just like every other phpBB forum on Earth is hardly the way to do it. They must offer something which is both distinct and special. That has been your mantra in so many places; surely you can see its value here. Otherwise, we might as well just close up shop and churn out endless series of bulletin boards, then hope to survive on Google Ads.
By being dismissive of the whole thing, you've essentially lost a place to make your views heard. I cannot tell you how many times that some media outlet such as NPR has interviewed some hack about computing topics, one who fails to look at more than one side of the story, folks who just plain get facts horribly wrong or ignore intriguing angles.
Don't sneer at solicited letters to the editor - you're not only denying yourself an opportunity, but, in a way, acting against your own stated principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is awesome being me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is awesome being me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly, I never got a reply in years past on a 'letter to the editor' nor every got a reply from one.
I got to where I wouldn't bother.
Not going to worry about it now, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just paper organs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just paper organs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just paper organs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just paper organs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not just paper organs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not just paper organs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just paper organs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of People write letters to the Editor;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is, they are all employees of Right-Wing think tanks, National Review wankers or conservative talk-show hosts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think, type, Review, Revise - Then press 'send'!
Sometimes you are wrong!
The reason I read your site is:
1. You often have an interesting 'take' on various topics.
2. In general your contributors add to my understanding.
What I want to read is a well expressed point. The problem with email is that one is more often apt to 'write in hast, and regret at leisure'. One feature of email that I think would help is a 'delayed' send mail button.
This would let you dash off the email, send it. And an hour later stop it from being delivered - saving you from making a fool of yourself.
The act of writing a paper letter to the editor provided
time to review and correct 'your first draft'.
Sometimes the very best letters (from the readers perspective) are those NOT SENT!
PS I do think you are correct most of the time.
Keep up the good work. And to you writers - thank you!
(and keep writing! )
[Crossing my fingers - hoping I am not making a fool of myself.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]