Post from David Bryan's Blog:
An alternative to letters to the editor
| By David Bryan - Jul 24, 2008 8:26:16 AM ET |
| Also listed in: Website Feedback |
While I aplaud anyone compelled to write their editor regarding environmental issues, I do question the efficacy of an organization, like this one, prompting its members to write their editors. What I'd recommend instead is prompting the members in a focused way to write and confront journalists who do a particularly bad job of covering the environment.
Here's why I think letters to the editor aren't the most effective way to get environmental messages into the media:
1. Most letters to the editor won't be published. One problem agenda-driven letters to the editor often have is a lack of context relative to the articles in any given paper. But even if one's letter is relevant to a paper's stories, it's unlikely, in a strictly statistical sense, that one's letter will be published.
2. Most letters aren't read. Even if your letter is published, it's not as likely to be read as the front page or front section of the paper.
I think the We campaign should point out to its membership particularly egregious examples of bad environmental journalism, and then one at a time, prompt their membership to contact the editors of those journalists. Here's why I think that would be more effective:
1. It's a task that turns on the membership. While the current request to write a letter to the editor seems like a vague, pointless assignment, calling out a propagandist is something that I could really get behind. Like many, I loathe the state of conventional journalism.
2. It would be effective. There is simply no way an editor or publisher could ignore letters from a sizable portion of We's 1.4 million membership.
Here's why I think letters to the editor aren't the most effective way to get environmental messages into the media:
1. Most letters to the editor won't be published. One problem agenda-driven letters to the editor often have is a lack of context relative to the articles in any given paper. But even if one's letter is relevant to a paper's stories, it's unlikely, in a strictly statistical sense, that one's letter will be published.
2. Most letters aren't read. Even if your letter is published, it's not as likely to be read as the front page or front section of the paper.
I think the We campaign should point out to its membership particularly egregious examples of bad environmental journalism, and then one at a time, prompt their membership to contact the editors of those journalists. Here's why I think that would be more effective:
1. It's a task that turns on the membership. While the current request to write a letter to the editor seems like a vague, pointless assignment, calling out a propagandist is something that I could really get behind. Like many, I loathe the state of conventional journalism.
2. It would be effective. There is simply no way an editor or publisher could ignore letters from a sizable portion of We's 1.4 million membership.
Comments are closed for this post.