"Editors see a policy of limited editorial intervention as the only way to ensure an open and honest debate about the varied issues that face citizens of a multicultural society. They are also eager to show that ethical aims of fairness, accuracy and balance underpin the letters pages."
I think this is a fairly accurate description of how editors view their role. From her descriptions in the book (and I don't really have any other experience to go on here) letters page editors seem committed to maintaining that part of the paper as the one of last vestiges of open debate, and to fairly represent the opinions of their readers.
If anything, she is underselling how much the editors are involved in shaping the debate. They are always going to be influenced by their own biases from their social vantage point, knowledge of who their audience is, etc., which necessarily colors how they define "balanced", and what they think the "dominant public opinion" is as she says in the next paragraph. Also, the rampant cynicism that is the (probably natural) result of dealing with the public, and their often crazy opinions likely prevents a clear-eyed, full effort of their mission. As she makes clear in the book, while the editors believe in the ideals of democracy as they apply to a robust discussion taking place in the letters page, their actions fall far short of those ideals. Partially, it is the workload which leads to the letters page being viewed as grunt work which is seen as taking away from more important writing.
If they see it as the "only way to ensure an open and honest debate..." then why don't they put it into practice? This is a classic case of the realities of the world falling short of the principles we would like to live by.
No comments:
Post a Comment