Nearly every week, listeners of National Public Radio's news
programs hear a musical segue and then the announcement, "Today we
read from your letters ... " What follows is NPR's version of
newspapers' "letters to the editor"--a segment in which
NPR presents excerpts from listeners' comments. Each
"letter" is clearly just an excerpt of a longer submission,
and the whole segment is just a snapshot of the dozens, perhaps
hundreds, of the total submissions each show receives in a given week.
The resulting collage of truncated commentary is one of the few regular
NPR features that provides a glimpse of NPR's listeners. But what
is the nature of that glimpse? What is NPR's purpose for providing
it? What can the practice reveal about the intersection of journalism
and the public?
This study explores those questions using a mixed-methods approach
in the tradition of some important "gatekeeping" studies, such
as David Manning White's foundational case study of "Mr.
Gates" (White, 1950) and Dan Berkowitz's study of gatekeeping
of local television news (Berkowitz, 1990). Although this study
addresses a gap in journalism research--there is little published
research of broadcast "letters to the editor"--the more
substantive purpose is to explore the idea that "imagining
community" influences journalism gatekeeping. To that end, the
study combines two theoretical frameworks. The first is "imagined
community," which suggests how large groups of people with similar
interests can view themselves as parts of distinct communities
(Anderson, 1991). The second framework is the "news making"
branch of inquiry, which suggests that the process of making news is
heavily influenced by news industry culture (Berkowitz, 1997, pp.
169-171). The research questions are meant to explore, via a study of
NPR's letters from listeners segments, whether the process of
imagining audiences as communities could be a process of news making,
and, if so, whether the resulting imagined community could reflect the
professional values of the journalists rather than the values of the
"real" communities they serve.
Literature Review
Overview of Letters-to-the-Editor Research
The idea that journalists construct publics when they edit and
publish letters to the editor is not new. Wahl-Jorgensen (2002) gave an
excellent treatment of that concept in an ethnographic study of
letters-selection procedures at newspapers in the San Francisco region.
Nor is there any novelty to the theory that journalists'
interpretation of "what's news" is largely informed by
journalists' own professional values and rituals (Schudson, 2003;
Tuchman, 1978, pp. 182-185). Several researchers have specifically
investigated journalists' perceptions of their audiences, often
finding that journalists know very little about their audiences, and in
crafting the news place more emphasis on the interests of fellow
journalists than on the interests of their audiences (Burgoon, Stacks,
& Burch, 1982; Gans, 1979). Along those same lines, letters sections
also are highly mediated and selective, and in the end perhaps more
representative of journalists' ideals than the values of the
audiences themselves (Wahl-Jorgensen, 2002). It is known that letters to
the editor are not written by a representative sampling of society--most
published letters are written by people who are middle-aged,
upper-middle income, highly educated, and White (Reader, Stempel, &
Daniel, 2004). Beyond matters of self-selection, however, news
editors/producers invariably (and, perhaps, necessarily) inject their
own personal and professional preferences into the selection and
packaging process. For example, journalists' general distrust of
anonymous speech explains why many editors hold anonymous letters in low
regard and, as such, most of them reject unsigned letters regardless of
their content (Kapoor, 1995; Reader, 2005). Although journalists clearly
exert strong gatekeeping controls over the letters they publish, letters
also can influence the journalists. For example, journalists can use
letters forums to gauge public opinion (Herbst, 1990), to make editorial
or news decisions (Davis & Rarick, 1964; Pritchard & Berkowitz,
1991), and to enhance newspaper readership (Kapoor, 1995; Ryon, 1992).
Many journalists and scholars agree that a handy indicator of a
publication's professionalism and credibility is the robustness of
its letters-to-the-editor section (Aucoin, 1997; Hynds, 1992; Lauterer,
2006; Shaw, 1977). However, researchers have long found letters to be
unreliable indicators of public opinion, and alignment with public
opinion is largely coincidental (Forsythe, 1950; Foster & Friedrich,
1937; Grey & Brown, 1970; Hill, 1981; Hynds, 1992). Although all of
the above mentioned articles focused on letters to the editor in
newspapers, one might expect that similar limitations would apply to
letters submitted to television and radio news outlets.
Brief History of Broadcast Letters to the Editor
Because so little has been written about broadcast letters, it is
necessary for this study to include a brief history of the phenomenon.
A clear difference between the two media is the fact that, unlike
the relatively unregulated print media, U.S. broadcasters are subject to
government regulation, and the Federal Communications Commission often
has regulated expressions of opinion over the airwaves. Prior to 1987,
the FCC's so-called "Fairness Doctrine" required stations
to facilitate dissenting viewpoints. Many scholars contend that because
of the Fairness Doctrine, many radio stations did not air controversial
opinions to avoid having to provide costly air time to opposing
viewpoints (Aufderheide, 1990; Brennan, 1989; Cronauer, 1994). After the
1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the chilling effect seemed to
dissipate, as many struggling AM stations became profitable by airing
long-form opinion talk shows in which hosts could opine freely without
having to accommodate opposing views (Albarran & Pitts, 2001, pp.
51-52). Although the FCC still requires stations to provide response
opportunities if they broadcast personal attacks or station editorials,
equal-opportunity claims are not required in most cases (Albarran &
Pitts, 2001, p. 53). Therefore, broadcast media are in no way required
to provide audience feedback segments on their newscasts; to do so is
voluntary, just as it is for print media.
One of the more notable proponents of reading audience letters on
the air was Dick Salant, the president of CBS News during the 1960s and
1970s and a member of NPR's board of directors in the late 1980s.
In his memoirs, Salant explained: "Over the years, I struggled with
... a letters to CBS News broadcast series--the broadcast equivalent to
print's letters to the editor" (Salant, 1999, p. 232). Part of
the problem was the sheer volume of letters CBS News received, a number
Salant estimated to be 150,000 letters annually (Salant, 1999, p. 232).
Salant said he would respond personally to some of those letters,
writing: "Because broadcasting is such an extraordinarily one-way
street with not even a regular letters-to-the-editor opportunity, it was
important, as a safety valve at least, to try to respond to mail"
(Salant, 1999, p. 232). Salant eventually implemented an on-air letters
segment for the 60 Minutes news show, a feature that media historian
Richard Campbell wrote "celebrates viewer diversity through its
semi-regular 'Letters' segment.... It is perhaps the only
program in the history of prime-time American television that, within
its limited and carefully edited forum, explicitly encourages diverse
and alternative readings of its own narrative interpretations"
(Campbell, 1991, p. 176).
Research of NPR's Audience
But who, exactly, is writing those comments? This author could find
no published research into the demographics of NPR letter-writers, but
there is some research about NPR's audience that might help give a
sense of who might be writing such letters. A 2002 study found that NPR
had an estimated 27 million listeners, and the average NPR listener
spent at least half of his or her radio-listening time listening to NPR
(Bailey, 2004). NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered,
both of which have regular "letters" segments, accounted for
23% of all listening to U.S. public radio (Giovannoni, Peters, &
Youngclause, 1999). NPR's own audience research in 2004 showed
NPR's audience skews male (54%); that 85% of listeners are White
and 10% are Black; that 66% are between 25 and 54 years of age (48% are
35 to 54); that 69% have household incomes above $50,000 per year; and
that the majority have lifestyles that include public involvement (61%
claim to vote), patronage of performing arts (51% attend theatre,
concerts, or dance performances), travel (72% traveled domestically in
the previous year, 38% overseas), and computer use (85% own computers,
71% use online services) (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2005).
They consistently rate learning about the world around them as being
"very important" (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2005,
p. 23). NPR's audience also is predominantly
"iconoclastic" in that they are much less likely than most
Americans to make sense of the world through traditional or religious
views (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2005, p. 24). NPR's
audience also is highly educated. In 2004, 68% of NPR news listeners had
college degrees, and 32% had attended graduate school (Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, 2005, p. 4).
But middle-class intellectuals were not the target audience of NPR
pioneer William Siemering, who wrote the original NPR mission statement
and served as the network's first program director. Siemering
wanted NPR to be a vehicle for diverse views from all of America's
cultural corners, not just college towns where affiliated stations would
be based (Engelman, 1996, p. 116). An overarching goal was to have NPR
serve as a forum for multiple and differing points of view--Siemering
envisioned "a structured approach for direct people-to-people
communication, eliminating some of the middle information brokers. We
would ... facilitate connections of ideas and form networks of unions of
common interest...." (Siemering, 1979, p. 35-37). Whereas some saw
that communitarian ideal come to life via NPR's programming, during
policy debates in Washington many critics accused NPR of skewing toward
certain demographics, with self-proclaimed liberals accusing NPR of
appealing too much to White, middle-class men, and conservatives
accusing NPR of being too deferential to "Great Society forces that
had been seen as undermining traditional U.S. economic and spiritual
values" (Rowland, 1986, p. 262). Rowland (1986) noted that
political pressures coupled with technological advances pushed public
broadcasting toward trying to reach wider audiences with programming
that would have national appeal. Over the years, NPR shifted from
primarily broadcasting locally produced programs to the nation to
producing many popular national programs to be broadcast through local
stations--as such, NPR has changed its approach from connecting
geographically dispersed communities to attempting to serve a nationwide
community based on shared interests and values of NPR listeners
(Stavitsky, 1994). In selecting and reading letters from listeners, NPR
could be applying those same principles.
Theory: News Work and Imagined Community
The theoretical framework of this study melds two well-studied
frameworks-imagined community and news work--to make predictions about
why and how NPR presents and constructs its letters from listeners
segments. Simply put, this study predicts, first, that NPR's goals
for the letters segments are to create a sense that NPR is a community
of listeners, and, second, that NPR ends up constructing an imagined
community that reflects the journalists' own professional values
rather than any shared goals or values of those who submit the letters.
Past research supports those predictions.
Crafting audience forums is part of the news work, or "news
making," process studied by Gaye Tuchman (1978), Michael Schudson
(2003), Dan Berkowitz (1997), and others. News-work research can help
explain the subjective nature of gathering, packaging, and disseminating
information to "enable geographically dispersed individuals to know
something about one another, one another's ethnic and neighborhood
groups, and events in group life" (Tuchman, 1978, p. 4). Although
letters forums differ from news sections, their production is still a
journalistic process subject to common constraints on news media,
including professional standards used in gatekeeping and agenda setting,
limitations of time and space, and organizational norms used to recruit,
train, and manage journalists (Donohue, Olien, & Tichenor, 1989).
All of those constraints apply to letters to the editor for example,
editors value letters that are short and to the point, that are
well-written, that reference current news, and that are signed by the
writers (Kapoor, 1995; Reader, 2005; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2002).
Journalists sometimes interpret letters to be representations of
shared views within their broader audiences (Hynds, 1992; Pritchard
& Berkowitz, 1991). As such, letters segments also can be seen as
exemplars of imagined communities, which Benedict Anderson defined as
collectives in which "the members of even the smallest nation will
never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of
them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion"
(Anderson, 1991, p. 6). Anderson's focus was on the creation of
national identities, but he noted that a daily collection of news
reports in a newspaper also exemplifies his theory, as a newspaper takes
varied and dispersed independent events with nothing in common (except
for when they occurred), and "the arbitrariness of their inclusion
and juxtaposition ... shows that the linkage between them is
imagined" (Anderson, 1991, p. 33). Several scholars have built upon
Anderson's theories to view news media as both members of and
facilitators of imagined communities, from the biases they reveal as
they cover immigration issues (Vukov, 2003)to their assumptions about
race and culture in coverage of the O. J. Simpson murder trial
(Silberstein, 2003) to how journalists, through shared discourse, come
to see themselves as a coherent community of like-minded professionals
(Zelizer, 1993). The concept also has been applied specifically to the
idea that radio is used in developing nations as a tool for community
building by providing a forum for public discourse (Hartley, 2000).
Taken together, these two frameworks can suggest that imagined
community isn't just an outcome of a news-making process--such as a
letters segment for NPR--but is actually an integral part of that very
process. For example, NPR producers might see letters segments as
recognizing the NPR "community" of listeners and as ways to
connect to their audience. But in constructing those segments, NPR
producers likely employ their own professional values much as they would
when making other editorial decisions, such that the community depicted
in those segments is based more on the journalists' professional
values than on the goals or values of the listeners who write. By
extension, the community the journalists construct would likely appear
to be more like the journalists themselves than the "true"
audience.
Research Questions
To explore the above theory using NPR's letters segments, the
study employed the following research questions, to be explored via
interviews with producers:
[RQ.sub.1]: How do NPR producers manage their letters segments?
[RQ.sub.2]: What are the goals NPR producers have for those
segments?
The analysis applied to those questions were then used to formulate
two additional questions, to be answered via textual analysis:
[RQ.sub.3]: To what extent do NPR's letters segments express
the journalistic values of balance, accountability, and accuracy
expressed by the producers?
[RQ.sub.4]: To what extent do NPR's letters segments use
inclusive language to express a sense that NPR listeners are members of
the NPR community?
Method
The mixed-methods approach of this study is similar to that used in
several notable gatekeeping studies, particularly the foundational study
by White (1950) of a single wire editor, "Mr. Gates." In that
study, White analyzed the wire content of the newspaper in question, and
then compared those findings to statements made by the editor regarding
why and how he made his selections. White found that the choices made by
"Mr. Gates" were largely subjective and were based on his
personal preferences and his assumptions about his readers rather than
on any real understanding of the goals and values of those readers
(White, 1950). White's method was directly replicated by Snider
(1967) and Bleske (1991), who discovered similar findings--when making
editorial choices, journalists rely more on their own (individual or
shared) values than on any serious effort to really understand the
values of their audiences. Berkowitz (1990) used a more robust
combination of content analysis and qualitative interviews to study the
gatekeeping procedures of a single television news station in
Indianapolis, and found that the gatekeeping process was susceptible to
many other factors than an individual's preferences, such as group
dynamics, aesthetic considerations, and resource limitations--but,
again, the process was influenced more by journalists' own
considerations than on any real attempt to understand audiences.
Methodologically, those studies first analyzed the content
quantitatively, then used qualitative interviews to further explain the
results of the content analysis. This study uses qualitative methods
only and reverses the process, using interviews to identify and explain
journalists' "values" which were then applied to a
textual analysis of the letters segments those journalists constructed.
The approach seemed appropriate for this study, as the goal was to,
first, explore the ways NPR producers consider their imagined
communities in their gatekeeping roles, and, second, to examine how
those considerations of community are articulated via the selection,
packaging, and presentation of letters from their audiences.
Questionnaires and Telephone Interviews
Questionnaires and telephone interviews were used to gather
information from producers responsible for managing letters at the three
news shows. This part of the project focused on [RQ.sub.1] (how letters
segments are managed) and [RQ.sub.2] (NPR's goals for letters
segments). In the summer of 2004, the three producers were first sent
questionnaires asking for general information about how letters are
managed, then each was interviewed during the winter of 2004-05 via
telephone to allow them to clarify or expand their written responses.
The questions related to this study were intentionally broad to allow
for unprompted expressions, and none of the research concepts were
mentioned in the questionnaire. Follow-up questions during telephone
interviews were derived only from responses to the questionnaire.
Textual Analysis
Textual analysis was used to determine a large-scale overview of
the ways letters segments represented the producers' stated
journalistic goals of "balance," "accountability,"
and "accuracy" ([RQ.sub.3]) and the degree to which inclusive
language is used to suggest the producers' idea that the NPR
audience is a community ([RQ.sub.4]). This portion of the study used a
census of transcripts for all the letters segments broadcast in 2003
(the most recent complete year in early 2004, when this study was
started) for three popular NPR news programs: All Things Considered (51
letters segments, 289 total letters), Morning Edition (40 segments, 162
letters), and Weekend Edition Sunday (29 segments, 91 letters). In all,
the analysis involved 542 discrete letters in 120 segments.
Each letter was analyzed for "balance,"
"accountability," and "accuracy."
"Balance" was a value the producers expressed as the need to
present different viewpoints in letters, with deference to opinions
expressed by multiple listeners or opinions that add new information to
the earlier reports. In the textual analysis, "balance" was
assessed in terms of letters that clearly agreed with, clearly disagreed
with, or "added to" (neither agreed nor disagreed with)
statements in those reports. "Accountability" was expressed by
the producers as the presentation of letters that commented on the
quality of NPR's journalism; in the textual analysis,
"accountability" was assessed in terms of letters that either
praised or criticized NPR and its work. "Accuracy" was
expressed by the producers as the need to correct factual errors in
previous reports; this concept was analyzed at the "letter"
level (individual letters used to correct factual errors in news
reports), and at the "segment" level (segments referring to
"non-letter corrections," or corrections to earlier news
reports that were not attributed to letter writers).
Each segment was then analyzed for "inclusiveness," which
is the concept derived from producers' expressions that NPR
journalists value and routinely consider feedback from listeners.
Expressions of inclusiveness were only analyzed when a host suggested
multiple people had written on a particular topic. Drawing from
psychological research that tests the influence of "inclusive
pronouns" on individual perceptions of being included in groups
(Crisp, Hewstone, Richards, & Paolini, 2003; Perdue, Dovidio,
Gurtman, & Tyler, 1990), this study grouped "multiple
letter" references by NPR into four categories:
"representative second-person" (example: "John Smith
spoke for many of you by writing ..."); "generic
second-person" (example: "Many of you wrote regarding
..."); "third-person" (example: "Many listeners
wrote regarding. .."); and "non-personal" (example:
"We received many letters regarding ..."). In the analysis,
the two second-person categories were considered indicative of
"high inclusiveness," as they might position listeners to be
among the "in group," and the third-person and non-personal
categories were considered to indicate "low inclusiveness," as
they suggested listeners to be among the "out group."
The textual analysis considered the frequencies of the above
characteristics not as generalizable predictors, but rather as more
qualitative indicators of "how a particular issue is being
presented in a large number of texts" and to consider "the
sense-making practices of audiences" (McKee, 2004, p. 128).
Specifically, this analysis looked for ways that the selection and
packaging of letters segments could be representations of the
producers' journalistic values and, in turn, interpreted by
NPR's audience as representative of the values of the NPR
community.
Findings and Analysis
Questionnaires and Interviews
[RQ.sub.1]: How do NPR producers manage their letters segments? The
three producers averaged 26 years each with NPR. None had handled
audience feedback letters in previous jobs, and none had received formal
training as to how to manage letters. None had formal letter-handling
guidelines. All three indicated that managing letters segments is
important work: "This is one of the most important jobs I do at
NPR," one stated.
The producers estimated that they each reviewed 100-200 responses
per broadcast, mostly e-mail (NPR stopped soliciting paper letters in
2003 after several other offices in Washington, DC, received envelopes
containing hazardous powders; by the time this manuscript was written,
NPR had switched to soliciting feedback via a form on the NPR Web site).
(1) None kept detailed accounts of the total letters received. The
producers estimated that only 2% to 5% of letters get selected to read
on the air, but, again, they had no data to support those estimates.
The selection and handling of letters varied somewhat by show. One
producer had editorial assistants "'weed' the large
volume of letters and forward (to) me about 15-30 a day," whereas
another noted: "1 read all the e-mail that comes in." The
third producer reviewed letters "for general appropriateness: Is it
for our show? Is it accurate? ... "All three said acceptable
letters should be short and engaging: one producer looked for letters
that were "articulate" and "to the point"; another
sought the "best-written" and "pithiest" letters;
"thoughtful," "critical," "clarity," and
"brevity" were attributes sought by the third. Contrary to
standard practice at most newspapers (Kapoor, 1995), letter writers
usually were not contacted if their comments were chosen for the
segments. Two producers said they usually only contact a writer to
clarify the pronunciation of his or her name. One producer will
occasionally contact a person who writes "a fervent letter
lamenting that we won't respond. It upsets me to think that people
think we don't read their letters."
Rather than being concerned about holding writers accountable for
their letters, the NPR producers rather applied the principle of
"accountability" to letters that held NPR responsible for its
own reporting. For example, all three noted they will only select
letters that respond specifically to NPR reports (as opposed to other
topics of interest to the letter writers). Also, all three noted that
they try to edit letters down to the most important points, removing
such things as "scolding" unsupported claims that NPR shows a
liberal/conservative bias. One producer rejected "nasty"
comments about NPR or its staff; another rejected "sappy
praise" for NPR and its on-air journalists.
Letters responding to other letters are not considered. Noted one
producer, "Why perpetuate the dialogue? That's not the job of
[letters segments]." Another stated: "We rarely will broadcast
a listener comment on another listener's comment ... [that] could
lead to an unending cycle of responses. But we do it occasionally."
The process thus clearly limits the discussion to direct feedback from
listeners about the programming--that is, NPR wants the segments to be
about NPR and its reports, rather than as segments about what the
broader audience might want to discuss.
The producers all said they strive for balance in the selection
process, and do so by considering the volume of mail received on
specific topics to determine which letters are most representative. One
producer specifically looked for letters that "represent a point of
view shared by other listener[s]." Another noted:
With news stories, I also look for letters from both sides of an
issue. However, that also depends to some extent on the volume
coming in and the approximate ratio of letters. For instance, if we
deal with a controversial subject and get 20 letters critical of
what we did and only one supportive, I probably wouldn't air the
supportive letter.... Sometimes I will air more than one letter
that is either supportive or critical, but then they must highlight
a different aspect of an issue.
The producers also described how the letters segments are used to
ensure accuracy. Corrections are an integral part of NPR's letters
segments, and all three noted that most corrections are initiated by
listeners. Said one, "For the most part, listeners are the first to
point out an error to us, so [the letters segment] seemed like a natural
place to put [corrections]." Two noted that corrective e-mails
often arrive almost immediately after an error is broadcast, and the
report in question can be corrected for later and archived feeds of the
show. All three noted that minor or obvious errors are usually not
attributed to letter writers; one noted that "I think I can write a
correction better than most listeners. People, when correcting us, can
be circuitous.... In the time it takes to say, 'Joe Schmoe
corrected us for saying such-and-such,' we can just do the
correction."
Thus, to answer [RQ.sub.1], NPR's letters segments are managed
with high regard for three common journalistic values--balance,
accountability, and accuracy. The producers strive for balance by giving
preferences to letters about topics that generate the most mail or that
add substantive information to earlier reports. By selecting only
letters that respond to the reports on specific shows, the producers
limit the forum to one of audience feedback, rather than a general forum
in which listeners can help to set agendas. And they use letters to
promote accuracy by using the letters segments to issue corrections.
[RQ.sub.2]: What are the goals NPR producers have for the letters
segments? All three noted that their staffs find letters useful. One
producer noted that the mail is "a method of evaluating listener
response to the program." Another stated: "We often talk about
comments during editorial meetings, and when we get a flood of mail
criticizing the balance or approach to a particular story--particularly
a political one--we sometimes tailor upcoming coverage or story
assignments accordingly." The third stated:
Informally, we will sometimes judge a segment as successful if it
receives a large number of complimentary e-mails. Of course, the
opposite is true.... And we are all aware that the amount of mail
that comes in does not necessarily reflect the opinion of all our
listeners.
The themes of "including" and "connecting" were
repeated often by the producers, in both the questionnaires and the
telephone interviews, and without any prompting. One producer stated:
"Radio is an intimate medium, and many listeners feel a personal
bond with a show or its host ... airing their letters is a way to
strengthen that bond." Another responded:
Broadcasting these e-mails on a regular basis is one of the most
important dialogues we can have with our listeners. It is, quite
literally, the "public" in public radio. When people write, it
means we have reached them in one way or another, and that is
important to me and to the show.
The third offered: "It lets listeners know we're
listening to them, not just broadcasting at them.... It keeps us
honest." That producer added:
In every producer's mind, there's an "idealized" listener who may
or may not reflect the real people who hear their work. Keeping
tabs on the listener mail reminds me I'm not producing this show
for myself or people "like" me. Listener comments are a constant
reality check, which I believe helps me do my job.
Stated another: "Listeners get a sense that in addition to
them listening to us, we listen to them." That producer gave an
example: When a popular host of one show was reassigned (and, in short
order, resigned from NPR), "We were 'blizzarded' with
very emotional responses, and we had a mass mailing of comments about
what had happened." The producers noted other instances that
attracted considerable e-mail--specifically the terrorist attacks of
September 11,2001, and the explosion of the U.S. Space Shuttle Columbia
in February 2003. "When that happens, I really think,
'Y'know, I'm proud of this place,'" one noted,
adding, "It just shows that NPR is a part of people's lives,
and that's really great." Another producer volunteered,
"Making our listeners feel part of a community is perhaps the
greatest benefit of airing comments" (emphasis added).
Overall, this part of the study suggests two general findings.
First, consistent with findings of past gatekeeping studies, the process
of selecting and editing letters is one in which the producers apply
their own journalistic principles (here "balance,"
"accountability," and "accuracy") to the process of
"making" the letters segments. Second, the producers'
statements about the goals for the segments clearly (and, sometimes,
literally) suggest that the producers want the segments to facilitate
the community of NPR listeners by "including" them, via their
letters, in both behind-the-scenes and on-air aspects of the news-making
process. Thus imagining community is not just a goal, but a deliberate
process used by these producers. And in that process, the producers
largely rely on their own professional values and preferences as they
"create" an image of that community, rather than truly
attempting to understand the values and preferences of that community.
On its own, however, the above analysis can only present the
procedures and goals NPR producers apply to their on-air letters
segments. The next part of the study explores the extent to which those
procedures and goals become evident in the content of the segments that
get aired.
Textual Analysis
The analysis began with a tabulation (from transcripts obtained via
LexisNexis) of the letters and segments for each show in 2003. In that
year, the three news programs presented 542 letters, with a median of
four letters per segment. The hosts made 233 announcements that
"multiple writers" had responded, with a median of two such
references per segment. Letters addressed 376 discrete topics (median of
three topics per segment). Of the total letters, 104 agreed with
comments made during the reports, 191 disagreed, and 231 added
information that could not be classified as agreeing or disagreeing.
Regarding NPR itself, 101 letters praised NPR and 133 criticized NPR.
Seventy-eight letters offered corrections or clarifications to
information in reports. In four letters segments, the announcers did not
read or identify any individual letters, but only issued corrections
attributed to "many listeners." Twenty people were allowed to
read their own letters on the air.
Table 1 compares frequencies (and means) across the three shows in
regard to the concepts of "balance,"
"accountability," and "accuracy." The data show
considerable differences among the three programs, supporting the idea
that there is an idiosyncratic nature to letters selection even within a
single news operation such as NPR.
The dominance of "disagree" letters (n = 191) over
"agree" letters (n = 104) suggests that the NPR producers
might have applied their value of "balance" as providing more
time for negative comments about news reports than for positive
comments, although the largest group of letters (n = 231) simply added
information in the form of personal observations or historical
perspectives from listeners. Likewise, the dominance of "bad
NPR" letters (n = 133) over "good NPR" letters (n = 101)
suggests that NPR producers might express "accountability" by
providing more opportunities for comment to NPR's critics than to
NPR's supporters. "Accuracy" was represented in the 78
individual letters of correction, as well as in the four segments
devoted entirely to corrections attributed only to "many
listeners."
In response to [RQ.sub.3], the above first-level analysis shows
that all three programs had letters segments that were constructed to
strongly reflect the producers' own values for accountability,
balance, and accuracy, even though those values were expressed somewhat
differently by each producer. Much like White (1950) found with his
study of "Mr. Gates," the selection of letters for NPR's
news programs was perhaps more a reflection of the values of the
individual gatekeepers at each show than on the values of NPR as a
whole.
In response to [RQ.sub.4] (use of inclusive language), the three
NPR programs regularly used "multiple writer" statements to
indicate that they received more letters than they could acknowledge on
the air (n = 233, with a mean of 2.04 such references per segment). (It
should be noted that a relatively small number of letters (n = 20) were
read on-air by the individual writers themselves, and such a
presentation could be viewed as highly inclusive.) But in terms of
"multiple writer" statements, the largest category (69%) was
"low inclusiveness" statements, mostly third-person (n = 104,
or 45%, were akin to "Many listeners wrote ... ") and
"non-personal" (n = 56, or 24%, were akin to "We received
many letters regarding ... ") The remainder represented highly
inclusive language: 46 (20%) were generic second-person ("Many of
you wrote regarding ..."); and 27 (11%) were representative
second-person ("John Smith wrote for many of you, stating
...").
Because the largest group of "multiple writer" statements
were third-person, and the second largest group were non-personal, one
might argue that when constructing these segments, NPR's producers
were more prone to use out-group rhetoric toward listeners than in-group
rhetoric (i.e., "we" the journalists are getting feedback from
"them" the listeners), perhaps contradicting their stated
goals of using the letters segments to, in the words of one producer,
include "the public in public radio." This finding could be
explained by the commonly understood divisions that exist between large
media organizations and their audiences.
This study stopped short of a more in-depth study of the rhetoric
of the individual letters that were selected to be on air to assess
other "values" identified by the producers, such as the
quality of the writing or the tone of comments (i.e., some letters were
presented as "humorous" or "hostile" or
"somber"). Such an inquiry would be worthwhile for future
research, but is beyond the intended goals of this study.
Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to explore the concept that, as
part of their work in news making, journalists might imagine their
audiences as communities, and then represent those communities such that
they appear to share the same professional values as the journalists
themselves. At the imagining stage, NPR producers clearly selected
comments for their letters segments based on the journalistic values of
balance, accountability, and accuracy, rather than any consideration of
the actual values/desires of those who sent the letters (for example,
they rejected letters that didn't refer to NPR reports, and they
also rejected letters responding to other letters, thus essentially
ignoring and omitting from the community those who had other interests
or who wanted to engage in a debate with other listeners). Second, they
described the goals of such segments not in terms of "customer
service," "regulatory compliance," or "company
policy," but rather in unambiguous and consistent terms of
"including" listeners in the news-making process and creating
a sense that NPR is a community in which the journalists and audience
members work together. Those beliefs, not surprisingly, were reflected
somewhat in the text of the resulting letters segments.
The segments also included suggestions that letters came not just
from the few individuals whose comments were read on the air, but from
many other listeners, sometimes referred to informally and intimately as
"you," but more often referred to with detached out group
pronouns. Absent from the segments were more comprehensive summaries of
all of the news reports that attracted letters (averaging just three
topics per segment, the letters segments clearly omitted comments on the
dozens of other topics covered each week by the three shows). The
segments were inclusive only of those who wrote about reports that the
NPR producers viewed as worthy of commentary, or whose comments appealed
to the journalistic standards and whims of the producers. As such, and
despite their best intentions to produce letters forums that represented
the real community of NPR's massive audience, in the end NPR's
producers were much like other gatekeepers in that they ended up
creating letters segments that most strongly reflected their own
professional values.
That is by no means meant to criticize NPR or its producers for the
limitations of its letters segments--as one of the few broadcast news
outlets that provides such forums, and as one that obviously does not
use such forums purely for self-promotion, NPR should be lauded for
providing such a service. The earnestness expressed by all three
producers during the interviews (not to mention their willingness to
devote several hours over a period of several months to this research
project) should indicate that they have strong positive attitudes and
interest toward their letters segments. But like their newspaper
counterparts, NPR's letters segments may create an image of a
community that is not representative of the whole audience, perhaps even
of all of those who send letters. That may be an unavoidable, and
perhaps even necessary, limitation of producing such features. But it is
a limitation nonetheless, and one that is worthy of consideration by all
who participate in such forums, from the writers of the letters, to the
journalists who handle them, to those who read or hear them.
From a theoretical standpoint, this study goes beyond the ideas
that journalism can facilitate community (see Park, 1929; Stamm, Emig,
& Hesse, 1997), that community can influence journalism (Donohue et
al., 1989), and that journalism itself represents an interpretive
community (Zelizer, 1993). Rather, it suggests that imagining community
is as much a process of journalism as a product of it, a process that is
largely defined by the sociology of the news profession. Journalists may
try to imagine community just as they try to be balanced, to promote
accountability, and to strive for accuracy. The mechanisms journalists
use for achieving and evaluating those ideals may likely be based more
on the shared discourse within the journalism community than the
discourse of the broader public.
For example, journalists often demonstrate "balance" by
reporting "both sides" of a story, when there might be six or
eight or hundreds of different sides; or a demonstration of
"accuracy" could be a statement such as "almost
six-million dollars" rather than the awkward "five million,
eight hundred and sixty-seven thousand, three-hundred and forty-two
dollars and seventy-six cents." Of course, the fulfillment of
ideals is limited in all professions--just as physicians cannot cure all
ailments or repair all injuries, journalists cannot present all of the
facts or document all possible viewpoints. So if the most commonly
identified journalistic values are necessarily limited, how, then, might
the journalistic goal of imagining community be limited? That's a
line of inquiry ripe for future study.
One obvious limitation to that process may be that the very nature
of a national news outlet such as NPR requires journalists to imagine
their communities to a much greater degree than, say, the editor of a
weekly newspaper in a small, rural town. With an estimated 27 million
listeners, it would be impossible for NPR's news staff to
personally meet even a representative sample of its entire national
(even international) audience. NPR is by its very nature disconnected
from its audience in nearly all ways that generally are attributed to
community (interpersonal communication, shared world views, shared
meeting places real or virtual, and so on). To compensate for such
disconnect, NPR may attempt to construct community via its letters
segments, and then incorporate that constructed community into other
aspects of its news work, such as reading letters to identify news
topics or to judge the "success" of previous reports by the
volume and nature of mail received. As evidenced by the producers'
own statements, their reading of audience mail had an influence on more
than just the letters segments--NPR staff used those letters to assess
their own work, to gauge public opinion, even to modify their
consideration of what to cover and how to cover it.
A challenge to the above conclusion might be that NPR (and perhaps
all journalists) make use of audience feedback simply as a means of
attracting and satisfying their customers. This study provides evidence
to dispute such arguments. The producers' rhetoric demonstrated a
desire to establish strong connections between themselves and their
audiences, saying such things as "many listeners feel a personal
bond with a show" and "broadcasting these e-mails.., is one of
the most important dialogues we can have with our listeners" and
"[it] lets listeners know we're listening to them, and not
just broadcasting at them." The journalistic process of imagining
community is not necessarily a crass market consideration, but could be
a genuine attempt by some (many?) journalists to not just serve a
community, but rather to be a part of that community, and to have their
work reflect the values of that community.
Although this study does not assess the degree to which NPR's
imagined community might correlate with the true characteristics of its
audience, or whether that audience in turn views itself as a community
of its own, it does set the stage for future research into how imagining
community can influence the journalistic process, and whether the size
of those communities (and the size of the news organizations within
those communities) might be a factor in assessing the
journalist-community relationship. Future research along those lines
might do well to look beyond mere questions of audience desires and
satisfaction, and focus more precisely on ways to measure, analyze, and
investigate the aspects by which audiences might also conceptualize
community, perhaps through letters to the editor--be they in print,
online, or over the airwaves.
References
Albarran, A. B., & Pitts, G. G. (2001). The radio broadcasting
industry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. New York: Verso.
Aucoin, J. (1997). Does newspaper call-in line expand public
conversation? Newspaper Research Journal, 18(3, 4), 122-140.
Aufclerheide, P. (1990). After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial
broadcast programming and the public interest. Journal of Communication,
40, 47-72.
Bailey, G. (2004). Mega Trends: The public radio tracking study,
special report. The Public Radio Tracking Study. Retrieved May 31,2007,
from http://www.ARAnet.com
Berkowitz, D. (1990). Refining the gatekeeping metaphor for local
television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34,
55-68.
Berkowitz, D. (1997). Social meaning of news. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bleske, G. (1991). Ms. Gates takes over. Newspaper Research
Journal, 12(4), 88-97.
Brennan, T. J. (1989). The fairness doctrine as public policy.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33, 419-440.
Burgoon, J. K., Stacks, D. W., & Burch, S. A. (1982). The role
of interpersonal rewards and violations of distancing expectations in
achieving influence in small groups. Communication, 11(1), 114-129.
Campbell, R. (1991). 60 Minutes and the news: A mythology for
middle America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (2005). Profile 2005: National
Public Radio station audiences. Washington, DC.: Public Radio Satellite
Service. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from
http://www.prss.org/resources/profile.cfm
Crisp, R. J., Hewstone, M., Richards, Z., & Paolini, S. (2003).
Inclusiveness and crossed categorization: Effects on co-joined category
evaluations of in-group and out-group primes. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 42, 25-38.
Cronauer, A. (1994). The fairness doctrine: A solution in search of
a problem. Federal Communications Law Journal, 47(1), 51-77.
Davis, H., & Rarick, G. (1964). Functions of editorials and
letters to the editor. Journalism Quarterly, 41(1), 108-109.
Donohue, G. A., Olien, C., & Tichenor, P. J. (1989). Structure
and constraints on community newspaper gatekeepers. Journalism
Quarterly, 66(4), 807-812.
Engelman, R. (1996). Public radio and television in America: A
political history. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forsythe, S. A. (1950). An exploratory study of letters to the
editor and their contributors. Public Opinion Quarterly, 14(1), 143-144.
Foster, H. S. Jr., & Friedrich, C. J. (1937). Letters to the
editor as a means of measuring the effectiveness of propaganda. The
American Political Science Review, 31(1), 71-79.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS
Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon.
Giovannoni, D., Peters, L., & Youngclause, J. (1999). Audience
98: Public service, public support. Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Retrieved May 31, 2007, from http://www.ARAnet.com
Grey, D., & Brown, T. (1970). Letters to the editor: Hazy
reflections of public opinion. Journalism Quarterly, 47(3), 450-456,
471.
Hartley, J. (2000). Radiocracy. International Journal of Cultural
Studies 3, 153-159.
Herbst, S. (1990). Assessing public opinion in the 1930s-1940s:
Retrospective views of journalists. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4),
943-949.
Hill, D. 13. (1981). Letter opinion on ERA: A test of the newspaper
bias hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(3), 384-392.
Hynds, E. (1992). Editorial page editors discuss use of letters.
Newspaper Research Journal, 13(1,2), 124-136.
Kapoor, S. (1995). Most papers receive more letters. The Masthead,
17(2), 18-22.
Lauterer, J. (2006). Community journalism: Relentlessly local.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
McKee, A. (2004). Textual analysis. London: Sage.
Park, R. E. (1929). Urbanization'as measured by newspaper
circulation. American Journal of Sociology, 25(1), 60-79.
Perdue, C.W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. 13., & Tyler, R. B.
(1990). "Us" and "Them": Social categorization and
the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 475-486.
Pritchard, D., & Berkowitz, D. (1991). How readers'
letters may influence edit