I’m not sure why Josh Chafetz thinks it ironic that the distribution the Guardian‘s Dear George letters doesn’t line up with data from opinion polls (data that the paper itself reports on). The mix of letters printed in a newspaper should be broadly representative of the correspondence it receives, not public opinion in general. Guardian readers are more likely than not to oppose Bush’s policies and this seems to be a minority view at present. While that might make Josh happy, I don’t see how it’s ironic.
{ 15 comments }
Josh Chafetz 11.19.03 at 12:51 am
Fair enough. I’ve attached an update to the post agreeing that it’s not actually ironic at all. Thanks for keeping me honest!
Nasi Lemak 11.19.03 at 1:06 am
The ICM/Guardian poll is suspicious as hell though – on pretty much every single issue there is a big shift from previous months towards Blair/newlabour/etc. etc. Unless confirmed by another pollster this looks like a very unfortunate case of ICM accidentally surveying the entire membership of Sedgefield Young Labour (or whatever).
Kieran Healy 11.19.03 at 1:24 am
Cheers Josh. On OxBlog you say
Kieran writes that “The mix of letters printed in a newspaper should be broadly representative of the correspondence it receives, not public opinion in general,” which is true, but irrelevant, since the “Dear George” letters were actively solicited by the newspaper.
Um, how is it irrelevant? Regardless of whether the letters are actively solicited or not, the paper still receives a batch of letters from its readers. It should then print a representative sample of them. Because all the letters are written by a sample of Guardian readers, they’ll still differ systematically from a sample of letters the general public would write. The fact that the paper solicted letters on this particular topic doesn’t matter at all. It’s just a question of being clear about what the printed letters are supposed to be a representative sample of. In this case, it’s “all of the letters that we solicited on the topic of Bush’s visit” rather than “the general public’s views about Bush’s visit.”
Josh Chafetz 11.19.03 at 1:33 am
Well, they solicited the letters from specific people. (Probably not all of them Guardian readers, in fact — I doubt the Guardian is Michael Portillo’s paper of choice.) So, while they may have printed a representative sample of the letters they received, the letters they received are some subset of the letters they specifically requested. That seems to me to be different than the normal situation where letters come in on their own and an editor chooses a representative sample to print.
But, anyway, this is a quibble, I think. You’re absolutely right on the overall point.
John Isbell 11.19.03 at 1:38 am
This thread contains the best thinking I’ve ever seen from Josh Chafetz.
Kieran Healy 11.19.03 at 2:24 am
Well, they solicited the letters from specific people.
Fair enough, I see your point. So we basically agree — well, isn’t that iro– Never mind :-)
raj 11.19.03 at 11:41 am
From what I have read of Chafetz, he seems to enjoy positing alternate realities. Perhaps he should realize that the criteria a newspaper publisher uses in determining what letters to publish may not correspond to his, and may not result in the publication of numbers of letters representing opinions conforming to opinion polls.
Guardian reader 11.19.03 at 12:52 pm
Yes newspapers are usually partisan in one way or another. Yet when confronting newspaper editors with this, they usually deny this.
Try to write to The Guardian and ask them whether they are left-wing — I’m sure they’ll reply that they’re “centrist” or so.
Also, newspapers should not only care about their (vocal) readership, but also trying to reach out to the wider public (and, if you like, potential readership).
Anyway, I doubt that even a majority of Guardian readers is really opposed to the Bush visit or considers him as somehow evil.
Letters to the editor merely reflect the radicalized margins — they are not representative of the readers as a whole.
ionfish 11.19.03 at 1:22 pm
The Guardian is far too elitist to be simply branded as “left-wing”.
Which is probably why I read it.
Mikhel 11.19.03 at 1:49 pm
Here’s an article more representative of moderation from the rag in question:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1086208,00.html
It’s pretty good.
John Isbell 11.19.03 at 4:39 pm
Lots of Guardian writers publish their email address, which I like, and most of them reply to email, which I also like. Including Sidney Blumenthal, nice.
So you sure can ask them. My favorite paper, it doesn’t shill as the NYT does.
Dave 11.19.03 at 4:45 pm
Actually, that piece was in the Observer. If you want real unsolicited letters to the editor, try the New York Times. I don’t know if they shill or not, as it’s a new word to me.
Guardian reader 11.19.03 at 4:46 pm
Oh, I agree — The Guardian is a great newspaper (the same is true for The Observer. In fact, I like the Guardian considerably more than I like that irritating minority of activist Guardian readers. I only wish Guardian editors would stop (at least sometimes) to speak only to the people left of the left.
reuben 11.19.03 at 5:32 pm
Guardian reader writes: “Try to write to The Guardian and ask them whether they are left-wing —I’m sure they’ll reply that they’re “centrist†or so.”
Have you actually tried this, or is it a supposition? Somehow I can’t picture the editorial staff of the Guardian claiming to be centrist. But of course that’s just a supposition too.
“Letters to the editor merely reflect the radicalized margins — they are not representative of the readers as a whole.”
Do you mean letters to the Guardian, or letters to the editor in general? Re the Guardian, I’ve had two letters published. In both cases, I was arguing a more moderate position than the journalist whose article I was commenting on.
Cheers
Auto 12.10.03 at 11:11 pm
Excellent site! Great job guys! Thank you!
Comments on this entry are closed.