Giving Voice to the Voiceless: Our Own Readers

Those #@$%$#$%! readers.

Let’s face it: That’s how a lot of folks in the print journalism world feel about our customers.

How dare they complain about coverage? We know best. How dare they cancel their subscriptions? Don’t they realize how very indispensable we are to a democratic society?

Here’s an idea: Give them a voice. Yes, beyond letters to the editor, do something to increase their stake in the newspaper and to refine their sense of ownership.

There are a few ways to accomplish this and all of them involve some — gasp! — direct contact with readers.

Community columnists. This is fairly common in smaller markets, but less so in mid-sized to large markets. I’m talking here about going beyond accepting periodic freelance pieces from the usual suspects. I’m talking about creating a rotating stable of community columnists. Rotating, in the sense that they all appear in turn, but also in their terms of service.

A newspaper editor might write a column to solicit applications. Ask for a cover letter that explains why the applicant wants to be a community columnist, along with two or three sample columns of roughly 700 words each. In other words, have an old-fashioned contest. You could explain that these writers will get paid a pittance, indicate how many you’re looking for, and then give some parameters.

For instance, among the folks who need not apply might be one-note Charlies, those folks interested in writing about only one issue. Abortion, maybe. Or taxes. Or how liberal the media is. Folks who work in PR for one cause or company probably should be barred. The same goes for elected officials or maybe those who work as high-level government bureaucrats.

In other words, you want regular folks, not people who already know how to access us and know which buttons to push to get us to meet with them or to include their views (or the views they represent) in the newspaper.

Make their terms of service finite. A year maybe. And then start the process anew.

We started this at my newspaper earlier this year, but only within my section. I’m the editorial page editor.

We have 17 such columnists. How many you pick is important. One for each day of the week won’t do. Simply put, it’s probably unreasonable to expect people who have lives — not to mention separate full-time jobs — to write a column for you once a week. But once every two weeks or so is not unreasonable.

Another important point: Quality of writing and the ability to persuade and to argue rationally are important factors when picking these columnists, but a newspaper should also consider diversity — including, but also moving beyond, racial and ethnic diversity. A newspaper might take a look at its circulation area and try for some geographic diversity. And if these columnists appear, as ours do, in the opinion section alongside George Will and Tom Friedman, you should try for opinions across the political spectrum. Gender and age will be important, too.

That means, when you seek out these columnists, you need to ask them to include enough information in their cover letters that allows you to consider diversity. Here’s the column I wrote to solicit them.

Then give yourself enough time to sort through the applications. You’ll likely get plenty. We got nearly 200.

It’s been nearly a half year since we started, and we’ve been quite pleased. More importantly, the readers have noticed. They’ve lauded us, even as they are writing letters to the editor in outrage or agreement over what one of the columnists has said. And they’re also asking already about when they can apply to become one of these people.

We’ve increased the voices and the diversity — in all aspects -– on our pages.

But does this give enough people a voice in the newspaper? Probably not, which is why you might also want to consider:

Reader advisory committees. Again, this is nothing new, but it’s more common in smaller markets. Essentially, as the title denotes, you are asking for people to advise you on what’s important in their lives and in their communities. You can then shape your coverage to accommodate that.

We’re now on our second committee. The first was fabulous, but I made the mistake of telling folks who applied but were rejected that they’d have another chance six months later. Six months is too short a period of time. Make their terms one year. Our second committee is having its first meeting the first Monday in October.

Of the reader-interaction devices used by newspapers, this one is probably the most suspect among journalists. There is a sense that we are abrogating our news or editorial judgments to non-journalists.

No, not really. Think of it this way: In your personal life, you get advice from a lot of people. Some of it is good and you follow it. Some of it is not necessarily bad, but unworkable — and though you give it a listen and due consideration, you don’t necessarily follow that advice. At no point have you abrogated any of your powers to decide.

Here’s how I solicited our most recent round of committee members.

Our committee advises only the newspaper’s editorial board. Because they were chosen to reflect geographic as well as all the other facets of diversity, committee members have been our eyes and ears in places where we can’t always be as often as we’d like. They’ve given us helpful and sometimes blistering critiques of our editorials, and we’ve found that they give us views we might not otherwise be exposed to.

Even when we’ve disagreed with stances offered by members of the committee, we’ve had fruitful discussions that help us craft better editorials. That’s because good editorials must necessarily deal with counter-arguments, if only to persuade more ably. That’s why we haven’t been shy about putting people on the committee who indicated in their cover letters that they consistently disagree with our editorials and our choices of columnists.

But here’s an idea: How about a reader advisory committee for the news side as well? I mean, if an editorial board can benefit from being exposed to a broadened diversity of views, wouldn’t editors and reporters who work in other departments also similarly benefit?

Often, in our committee meetings — once a month here at the newspaper, with cookies and beverages in payment — members clearly indicate a desire to talk about a story, not an editorial, that they want covered. Or they want to critique a story. I promise to pass these things on and do. But it happens often enough that a committee just for the newsroom might be useful.

Again, you’ll always benefit from good advice even if you are not mandated to follow it.

Make these overtures to readers and you’ll discover something. No one will be more surprised that you are doing so than they are. Even as they are applying for committes and columns and lauding us for giving them the opportunity, they are expressing incredulity that we would consider doing such a thing.

So, what does their surprise say about us?

It says that readers feel disengaged with the newspaper, and that they welcome the chance to learn about us.

Including community columnists and forming reader advisory committees takes away some of the mystery about journalism. And if the mystery is lessened — if people actually get to see how a newspaper works — appreciation for what we do only increases.

And that’s a pretty good dividend for simply doing the right thing — giving readers more voice than they have now.