Expanding the Public Conversation -- or Just Sounding Off?
An Appraisal of the Newspaper Call-in Comment Line
By Dr. James Aucoin
Assistant Professor
Communication Department
University of South Alabama
UCOM 1000
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office phone: (334) 380-2806
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Submitted to the Civic Journalism Interest Group for
presentation at the AEJMC annual meeting, Washington, D.C.,
August 1995.
Expanding the Public Conversation -- or Just Sounding Off?
An Appraisal of the Newspaper Call-in Comment Line
By Dr. James Aucoin
University of South Alabama
Abstract
A content analysis of six weeks of one urban
daily's call-in column and its letters to the editor is
analyzed using the journalism-as-conversation model.
The study finds evidence that such columns do expand
public dialogue in various ways. Lively exchanges of
opinion about public issues take place. However, the
study finds editors ought to consider ways to improve
the conversation. Publishing reader sound bites limits
the quality of the dialogue.
3
Expanding the Public Conversation -- or Just Sounding Off?
An Appraisal of the Newspaper Call-in Comment Line
Several researchers have called on the media to do a
better job of inspiring public dialogue (Anderson, Dardenne,
and Killenberg, 1994; Shepard, 1994; Miller, 1994; Rosen,
1993; Christians, Ferr , and Fackler, 1993; Lambeth, 1992;
Clark, 1992; Keane, 1991; Hagopian, 1993). Anderson, et
al., present a "journalism as public conversation" model and
propose that the news media
promote and sustain public communication by reaching
out to a public that will otherwise lose its myriad
(but uncoordinated) voices to organized lobbyists . . .
and the menagerie of other authorities of conventional
wisdom that crowd our pages and airwaves" (1994, 31).
The comment line, called by various names such as "Sound
Off" or "Your Turn," is one way newspapers have tried to
reach out to the public. The comment line falls within the
tradition of the letters-to-the-editor columns on newspaper
opinion pages, but veers enough from that tradition to
elicit considerable controversy among journalists and the
public. One editorial page editor defended his newspaper's
call-in column by arguing that its popularity provides a
point of entry to the opinion page and helps to maintain
interest in the opinion page (Hagopian, 1994). Another
editor, however, criticized the call-in columns as "verbal
Nerf Balls" requiring no thought to send and generating
little when read (Reinken, 1994). A member of the public
4
wrote to editors of one urban daily to complain about
participants of its Sound Off column:
I've held off as long as I can. Now it's time for
me to sound off about the Sound Off column.
When this was first added . . ., it seemed like a
pretty good idea. If people didn't have the ability to
write a letter to the editor or if they didn't have
enough time, there was now an opportunity to voice
opinions about things concerning the city . . .
But look what's happened. We now have . . . a way
to hurt people and their families . . . And the callers
never have to give their names" (Curtis, 1994).
Callers to the call-in comment lines are often allowed to
remain anonymous and to speak on whatever subject they
please. Indeed, the above-quoted letter to the editor was
responded to by callers to the paper's Sound Off column.
One caller agreed with the letter writer, but another
criticized her for failing to understand that anonymity is
necessary to protect callers from retaliation by their
employers ("Sound Off," Mobile Register, Oct. 19, 1994, 2A).
It appears that called-in comments are usually selected
and edited by a participating newspaper's editors. Hagopian
(1994), for example, reported his newspaper received 18,000
calls a year yet had the space to publish only 6,000 (15).
A typical advertisement for another paper's "Sound Off"
column announces that comments will be edited:
When you call "Sound Off" you are free to discuss any
topic you wish. We don't guarantee all comments will
make the column, but we will print as many as possible.
We will also have to edit the comments to make sure
they are not libelous . . .(Mobile [Ala.] Press-
Register, special advertising insert, Feb. 26, 1994).
5
The extent of oversight and other details of how the
press handles call-in comment columns must be extrapolated
from just such anecdotal evidence because little research
has been published on the subject. Researchers have
contributed much to our understanding of the letters to the
editor tradition (Foster and Friederich, 1937; Forsythe,
1950; Tarrant, 1957; Davis and Rarick, 1964; Vacin, 1965;
Klempner, 1966; Haskins, 1967; Rosenthal, 1969; Roberts,
Sikorski and Paisley, 1969; Grey and Brown, 1970;
Singletary, 1976; Renfro, 1979; Singletary and Cowling,
1979; Lemert and Larkin, 1979; and Pasternack, 1988;
Pritchard and Berkowitz, 1991). And some related research
and trade and popular press reports suggest findings that
may relate to call-in comment lines (Cotter, Perry, and
Stovall, 1994; LaRose and Atkin, 1992; Watson, 1993; Ahern,
1992; Viladas, 1992). A survey of research literature,
however, reveals little about the extent of call-in comment
columns in U.S. newspapers, the standards and procedures
relating to the columns, or the characteristics of those who
participate in the columns. While this paper cannot answer
all the questions that are unanswered about call-in comment
lines, it is an attempt to begin filling the research void.
Research Questions
Building on the concept of journalism as conversation
proposed by Anderson, et al. (1994, hereafter referred to as
Anderson), this study poses several questions relating to
6
the extent and quality of public dialogue generated by the
call-in comment line column published by a Southern urban
daily.
Anderson argues that journalism's primary role is "to
stimulate public dialogue on issues of common concern to a
democratic public" (xx). If the call-in comment column is
serving this purpose, then callers will be primarily
discussing public affairs issues such as local, state, and
national government, elections, politics, education, crime
and criminal justice, the availability and quality of health
care, the quality of life in the community and the nation,
and the performance of public and semi-public institutions.
Consequently, this study's first question is:
1. What subjects do callers discuss when they
call the call-in comment line?
In addition to being concerned about public issues,
members of a democratic community ought to converse with one
another, Anderson explains. The press, in this context,
becomes one of the conversationalists as well as facilitates
the conversation among members of the public. "News, in a
more fundamental sense, emerges as a community converses
with itself" (Anderson, 102). Likewise, social philosopher
John Dewey, in proposing a conversational model of
community, stressed that "ideas which are not communicated,
shared, and reborn in expression are but soliloquy, and
soliloquy is but broken and imperfect thought" (1927, 218;
7
quoted in Anderson, 21; Dewey's model of self and society is
shared and expanded by Mead, 1934; Berger and Luckmann,
1967; Habermas, 1987; and others). This raises, then, the
issue of reciprocity. If public dialogue is being generated
by the call-in comment column, then there should be evidence
that the published comments are participating in a
conversation by referring to previous news stories,
editorials, and columns, called-in comments, or letters to
the editor. "To speak," observes Ong, "you have to address
another or others" (1982, 176). Which Clark interprets to
mean that "communication is a process of social interaction
constituted of an ongoing exchange of inherently
interdependent statements and responses" (1990, 2). "True
conversation cannot be analyzed apart from its past or its
anticipated future" (Anderson, 30). Moreover, there should
be a healthy exchange of different ideas. Clark argues, for
example, that "pluralism requires that conflicting notions
of shared, social knowledge coexist, and that the conflicts
themselves be publically explored" (1990, 57). Hence, this
paper's second and third research questions are:
2. Do comments published in the call-in comment
column directly respond to previously published
comments, news stories, editorials, letters to the
editor, or columns?
3. Do published comments provide a mix of
political and social policy perspectives?
8
Anderson warns, however, that public dialogue suffers
when reader comments are boiled down "to little more than
messages stating `You are right' or `You are wrong'" (34).
Consequently, the quality of the comments becomes important
in assessing the called-in comment line's effectiveness.
The comments ought to provide more than unsubstantiated
opinions if they are going to contribute to a public
decision-making process. They ought to add factual
information to the debate. The fourth research question is:
4. Do the published, called-in comments primarily
offer opinions, factual information, or both?
Finally, for comparison purposes, letters to the editor
published in the same paper during the same time period were
examined along with the called-in comments, and a fifth
research question is asked:
5. Do the conversational attributes of called-in
comments differ from those of letters to the editor?
Methodology
A content analysis was conducted on all letters to the
editor and all comments in the "Sound Off" column of a
medium-size Southern metropolitan daily newspaper published
from Sept. 18, 1994, to and including Nov. 12, 1994.1 The
newspaper was appropriate for this study because its call-in
comment column had been published for at least one year at
the time of study. This was long enough that the column had
9
become an established daily feature. In addition, the
newspaper promoted the column, frequently with half-page
house ads. Moreover, the paper continued to promote letters
to the editor and published them daily on the opinion page.
The letters to the editor were signed; the called-in
comments were not. Newspaper personnel were gatekeepers for
both, selecting letters and comments for publication and
editing for length and content. No prior restraints were
put on subject matter that could be discussed by callers or
letter writers.
The time period was chosen to take advantage of the
fact that state and off-year national elections were held
during the time span studied. If the newspaper was in fact
encouraging public dialogue about public issues, this should
be particularly evident during periods immediately prior to
elections. Furthermore, a study of approximately eight
consecutive weeks (56 consecutive days) was conducted
(instead of a randomized sampling of comments and letters)
in order to maximize the study of what can be called the
"reciprocity factor" -- the extent to which called-in
comments and letters to the editor were called in or written
in order to respond to previously published items in the
paper. This was important in order to consider the dialogic
nature of the comments and letters.
A total of 663 called-in comments and 240 letters to
the editor were coded, representing the entire population.
Each item was coded for length, geographic focus, subject
10
matter, reciprocity, character of comment, and quality of
comment.2 Furthermore, in order to quantify the extent to
which readers' comments and letters represented a spectrum
of political and social opinion, they were coded for
political party references and, if applicable, social
philosophy.3 Each also was coded as to whether the caller
or writer was "whistle-blowing" and whether an editor's
response was printed to clarify or respond to the comment or
letter.4 Two coders were used with 86.6% reliability.
Pearson chi-square with goodness of fit was used to analyze
the data.
Results
The newspaper's "Sound Off" column averaged 11.8
comments daily (the most carried in one day was 20) while
its opinion page published an average of 4 letters daily.
The length of the published call-in comments ranged from 4
words ("I miss George Bush." [Sept. 18, 1994]) to 106 words,
with a mean of 38. The letters ranged in length from 28
words to 642 with a mean of 186.
More than half of the "Sound Off" comments dealt with
local issues (56.7%) and more than a fourth (28.1%)
concerned national issues. State issues accounted for 11.5%
of the comments, while international issues barely
registered. Local and national issues dominated the letters
to the editor as well, yet there was a significant
difference between the distributions. In contrast to the
11
call-in comments, the letters were more evenly divided among
local, state, and national issues (See Table 1).
Politics and government dominated the subject matter
for both the call-in comments and letters. Approximately
half of each fell into this category. Callers showed
considerable concern for education
_____________________________________________
Table 1
Geographical Focus
Call-ins Letters
Local 56.7% 35.0%
State 11.5 19.6
Nation 28.1 39.2
International 1.6 2.1
General 2.7 4.2
N=663 N=240
X2 = 34.45, 4 d.f., p<.0005
______________________________________________
and public safety issues, as well, while letter writers
showed more concern for media and quality of life issues.
There was a significant difference in their distributions
(See Table 2).
Both comments and letters had a strong reciprocity
factor with no significant difference in this
characteristic. Yet what each referenced was significantly
different. "Sound Off" comments tended to reference
12
previous news stories and other "Sound Off" comments, while
letters to the editor were more likely to reference a news
story, an editorial, or a column by a local writer. This
may suggest some exclusivity among those who call in and
those who write letters, with letter-writers more oriented
toward the opinion page. However, there were several
________________________________________________
Table 2
Subjects
Call-ins Letters
Politics/Govt. 51.0% 52.1%
Education 10.0 2.9
Public Safety 13.0 5.4
Health Care 0.6 2.5
Media 5.4 11.3
Quality of Life 8.3 11.3
Business 2.3 0.4
Religion 1.2 1.7
Other 7.8 12.5
N=663 N=240
X2 = 42.87, 8 d.f., p<.0005
__________________________________________________
letters (n=14, or 5.8%) that were written in response to
comments published in "Sound Off" and some 6.3% were written
in response to previously published letters. Only about 2%
13
of the "Sound Off" comments made direct reference to a
previously published letter to the editor (See Table 3).
______________________________________________________
Table 3
Reciprocity
Call-ins Letters
Yes 86.3% 80.8%
No 13.6 19.2
N=663 N=240
X2 = 3.64, 1 d.f., no sig. at p<.05
_______________
Reference
Call-ins Letters
News Story 59.7% 34.2%
Editorial 1.2 10.8
Local Column 3.0 16.7
Synd. Column 1.4 2.5
"Sound Off" 15.2 5.8
Letter to Editor 2.0 6.3
Other 0.9 2.1
Unclear 2.6 2.1
Not Applicable 14.0 19.6
N=663 N=240
X2 = 144.28, 8 d.f., p<.0005
____________________________________________________
14
About half of the comments and letters were made or
written to present an opposing side to a previous position
publicized either in the news columns or in the opinion
columns. A little more than 19% were made or written to
voice agreement or offer supporting arguments to previous
positions. And slightly less than a third were neutral.
There was no significant difference between comments and
letters in this category (See Table 4).
There was considerable difference, however, in whether
an item offered an opinion, presented facts, or mixed
opinion and factual information. Called-in comments
overwhelmingly (79.6%) stated opinions only. Almost half of
the letters stated opinions only while more than half of the
letters (52.9%) provided both opinion and factual
information (See Table 5).
There was no significant difference between comments
and letters in obvious political party affiliation. Both
were equally shy on loyalty to a party. The overwhelming
majority of both (86.2% for comments and 80% for letters)
showed no overt preference for either Republicans or
Democrats (See Table 6). This may be a reflection of the
American voter's independence, or it may be that newspaper
personnel reject or edit out comments and letters that are
heavily partisan. However, when a political party
preference was clearly discernable, in both the call-ins and
the letters, the preference was substantially for the
15
________________________________________________
Table 4
Character of Content
Call-ins Letters
Oppositional 50.5% 53.8%
Supportive 19.2 19.2
Neutral 30.3 27.1
N=663 N=240
X2 = .98, 2 d.f., no sig. at p<.05
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Table 5
Quality of Comments
Call-ins Letters
Opinion Only 79.6% 45.0%
Facts Only 0.8 1.7
Both 16.9 52.9
Query 2.7 0.4
N=663 N=240
X2 = 117.51, 2 d.f., p<.0005
________________________________________________
Republican Party. This may indicate a bias by those
newspaper personnel who choose which comments and letters to
publish, or it may reflect the political loyalties of the
newspaper's readership (See Table 6).
16
The majority of both comments and letters were not
applicable to social philosophy categories because they
clearly did not concern matters of social policy, yet
_____________________________________________________
Table 6
Political Affiliation
Call-ins Letters
Democrat 4.2% 4.6%
Republican 8.1 15.0
Neither 86.2 80.0
N=663 N=240
X2 = 3.98, 2 d.f., no sig. at p<.05
___________
Political Affiliation When Party Indicated
Democrat 37% 24%
Republican 63 76
N=85 N=47
X2 = 2.38, 1 d.f., no sig. at .05
___________________________________________________
letters to the editor were significantly more likely to
express social philosophical positions (See Table 7). Both
comments and letters, however, tended to be more supportive
of conservative social views than liberal ones when views
were expressed (See Table 7). Conservative viewpoints were
expressed in approximately 40% of the 197 call-in comments
17
that expressed a view and in nearly 52% of the 114 letters
that expressed such viewpoints. Liberal positions were
expressed in 16.7% of the call-in comments and 13.1% of the
letters.
___________________________________________________
Table 7
Social Philosophy
Call-ins Letters
Conservative 11.9% 24.6%
Liberal 5.0 6.3
Neither/Unclear 12.8 16.7
Not Applicable 70.3 52.5
N=663 N=240
X2 = 29.43, 3 d.f., p<.0005
____________
Social Philosophy When One Is Expressed
Call-ins Letters
Conservative 40.1% 51.7%
Liberal 16.7 13.1
Neither/Unclear 43.1 35.1
N=197 N=114
X2 = 3.98, 2 d.f., no sig. at p<.05
____________________________________________________
"Whistle-blowing" and editor's notes were negligible.
Only 1 of the called-in comments and 8 of the letters were
18
considered to be "expos ." Editors attached notes to only 4
call-in comments and to none of the letters.
Discussion
These results suggest that the introduction of a call-
in comment column in a metropolitan newspaper may broaden
the participation and the composition of public dialogue but
also may lessen its quality. The call-in column allowed the
newspaper to publish comments from an average of about 12
additional readers each day, compared to giving space to but
4 letters to the editor a day.5 In addition, it appears
that the comment line has widened the range of subject
matter that members of the public discuss in the forum
offered by the newspaper, but the format may actually
diminish the effectiveness of the forum for generating
useful public dialogue.
To expand on these points, a detailed consideration of
the research questions follows:
What subjects do callers discuss when they call the
call-in comment line?
It appears that more than half of the call-in comments
that get published concern a local political or government
issue. Typical is the following one published on Oct. 31,
1994:
If [the mayor] gets this garbage tax at $4 or even $1,
we should have a recall election under the "Lemon Law"
19
-- just like you do with an automobile that's a jinx --
and throw him and the whole City Council, the School
Board and every elected official in Mobile County and
the state out of office.
Another fourth will concern a national issue, such as the
following, which appeared Sept. 18, 1994:
It is incredible to me that so many people call and
defend Bill Clinton. Any person who is informed can
see he is the most dangerous person that has ever
infiltrated our government.
To a lesser extent, the call-in comment may concern a local
education or public safety issue. A typical education-
related comment on Sept. 27, 1994, pointed out how shabby
the county's schools had become and sarcastically asked:
"Haven't the school board ever heard of maintaining, or do
the janitors get three months off like the teachers do?"
Commenting on public safety, one caller on Oct. 26 expressed
"outrage" over a drive-by shooting and declared that "as
long as criminals run the streets, violence will only get
worse in this city." Expressing a different attitude, a
caller on Nov. 7 criticized a recent roadblock by state
troopers as "really not what we need here in America."
Politics and government led the list of subjects for
letters to the editor as well, but letter writers were more
likely to write on state and national matters than on local
ones. This may reflect the number of letters sent in by
officials of statewide organizations to publicize an issue
or clarify facts. During the study period, for example, the
paper published letters from the chairperson of the Victim
Service Providers Committee, the executive director of the
20
state Republican Party, and the executive director of the
Association of County Commissioners of Alabama, among other
officials from statewide and national organizations.
It is clear, however, that both letters and call-in
comments published during the study period generated
discussion about "issues of common concern to a democratic
public," to use Anderson's phrasing. While there were a few
call-ins that discussed such issues as how perfumes can be
unpleasant for those allergic to them and getting dogs
tattooed for identification, 92 percent of the call-in
comments and 88 percent of the letters to the editor fit
within one of the public-issue categories coded. In
addition, many of those that fit within the "other" category
also concerned public issue matters, such as the need for
quality parenting or how it is important to treat
handicapped persons with respect.
Do comments published in the call-in comment
column directly respond to previously published
comments, news stories, editorials, letters to the
editor, or columns?
Do published comments provide a mix of political
and social policy perspectives?
Anderson (1994) stresses the need for "true
conversation" that involves the qualities of reciprocity and
an exchange of differing ideas. Since any print-mediated
21
conversation requires some lag time, it is difficult for a
"Sound Off" column to truly achieve the "immediacy of
presence," that Anderson says is one of the qualities of
dialogue (27). And yet, reciprocity does occur. A news
story may begin the dialogue by inciting a reader to call
the comment line to offer his or her opinion, which may
cause another reader to call the comment line or write a
letter to the editor, which then can cause even further
discussion mediated by the newspaper.
An example of this occurred in late September and early
October 1994. Reacting to news stories, several callers to
"Sound Off" discussed the quality of the local school
system. These comments prompted a school teacher to call in
to argue that "you [taxpayers] are going to get what you are
paying for. Until you raise the property taxes, you will
continue to get nothing for nothing" (Sept. 29, 1994). The
teacher went on to draw attention to a news story in the
previous day's paper that reported the state had the second-
lowest property taxes in the United States. At least 4
callers replied to the teacher, including 1 two days later,
who stated: "To the caller who said that we have the second
lowest property taxes in the country: We've got the highest
sales taxes of anybody in the country, and we don't need
property taxes to go up like sales taxes." The teacher's
comment also resulted in a letter to the editor that
questioned the quality of teaching in the schools. The
letter to the editor was answered by 2 call-in comments, 1
22
by a caller who agreed and commented: "I think everyone
who's demanding higher taxes for schools should read [the
letter]. . . " The other comment was by the teacher who
sparked the exchange: "I'm the `nothing for nothing'
teacher one of your letter writers on the editorial page has
misunderstood, and I would like to clarify. . . ." The
discussion involved individual comments by members of the
public as well as a follow-up comment from at least one
person in a give-and-take dialogue with the others.
All but about 14 percent of the comments in the call-in
column were direct responses to previous views published in
the paper. Most responded to a news story, although a
considerable number (n=101, 15.2%) responded to previous
callers and another 2% responded to letters to the editor.
Moreover, it could be that while the comment appeared to
refer to the news report, it could have been spurred by
someone else's previous comment. It was sometimes difficult
to tell whether the caller was replying to the story or to
another caller. In addition, almost 6% of the letters
responded directly to a "Sound Off" comment, even though the
letters were more likely to be responding to a news story,
an editorial, a column, or another letter.
There also was an element that resembles what Anderson
describes as the "intrusion of the unexpected." During the
discussion of a proposed garbage fee, one caller to "Sound
Off" went off on a tangent about refuse haulers damaging
23
trash cans and another caller wondered why the sewer fee was
calculated as part of the water bill.
The data indicate, however, that the call-in comment
line may not result in a wide range of political and social
positions being presented in the public dialogue. Newspaper
readership in urban areas will not necessarily include
residents whose views are significantly different from those
of the dominant culture. Urban dailies usually speak
primarily to middle and upper class consumers (Bogart, 1991;
Bogart, 1989, 333-352; Williams, 1992; Shriver, 1992;
Bagdikian, 1983, 176-194). Even when those with unpopular
political and social opinions read the mainstream press,
they may be reluctant or uninterested in participating in a
public discussion (Gonzenbach, 1992; Noelle-Neumann, 1984).
In addition, studies of radio talk show participants have
found them to be mainly conservative people with firm
opinions (Viles, 1993a, 1993b; Kincaid, 1993; Lewis, 1993).
So it was not surprising to find in this study that called-
in comments in which a political party was given obvious
preference, the Republican Party was the party whose views
were expressed most of the time (63% of the time). The
Democratic Party was represented in about a third of the
calls. Only one comment was found that indicated support
for a different political party. In addition, when a social
philosophy was expressed, it was more likely than not to be
conservative.
24
This was not much different from what was found among
the letters to the editor. About 76% of the letters that
expressed a political party preference represented the views
of the Republican Party. None of the letters indicated
support for a party other than the GOP or the Democrats.
Conservative social philosophy also dominated letters to the
editor when a social philosophy was clearly expressed.
This raises the specter of the call-in comment line's
being merely another format that ends up supporting
entrenched opinion. However, the fact that at least half of
the comments and half of the letters were critical of
previous comments suggests that an exchange of political and
social philosophy may be occurring. While there were a
sizable number of comments and letters that did not indicate
a preference for a political party or a social philosophy,
this may have been because the issue being discussed was not
political or the callers and letter writers may have been
among the large number of Americans who refuse to associate
with either of the dominant political parties (Kellerman,
Kohut, and Bowman, 1990, 2, 12-13, 22; Holloway with George,
1986, 215-234; Everett, 1982; Ginsberg, 1986, 166-180).
Anderson's dialogic concepts of "collaborative
orientation" and "mutual implication" underscore the
importance of disagreement during discussions of public
issues (27-28). Clearly, oppositional comments that could
result in a dialectical meeting of the minds were a
prevalent part of the discussions. About half of the
25
called-in comments were made to challenge previously
expressed views. There was no evidence, however, that the
dialogue resulted in any changed minds. In discussing the
conversational quality of vulnerability, Anderson writes
that "a conversation worthy of the name involves persons
willing to let persuasive messages change their minds and
adjust their actions" (27). While changes may have
occurred, the dialogue usually stopped before evidence of
changes could be detected, leaving the impression that such
call-in columns are sterile repositories of individual,
unchanging perspectives. Future research that studies
audience response may alter this impression.
If this impression is confirmed by future research,
however, the cause may be related to the fourth research
question asked in this study:
Do the published, called-in comments primarily offer
opinions, factual information, or both?
Research results show that most of the called-in comments
offered little more than the caller's opinion. Because
limited space is allotted to the comments (until Nov. 6,
1994, one column was allocated; after that date, a column
and a half was allocated), the comments are often no more
than short sound bites of emotion rather than reasoned
dialogue. In 1988 the average television political sound
bite was 9 seconds, which would accommodate approximately 22
or 23 words (Hallin, 1992). The average number of words in
26
a "Sound Off" comment was 38. In this respect, they
resemble quotes used in news stories.6
Consider, for example, the news story "Garbage fee is
near OK," which ran on the newspaper's Nov. 1, 1994, front
page. It reported on the city council's discussion of the
city budget and alternative types of taxes and fees,
including a proposed garbage fee, that could be imposed to
generate increased revenues for the city. The story quoted
only city council members and the mayor. The swing vote for
approval of the garbage fee could come from one city
councilman, who indicated he was leaning toward approving
it. He was quoted: "Four dollars does not seem to be
unreasonable . . ." The entire quote reflected no more than
the councilman's opinions. Another council member responded
she would vote against the fee because "it's like a heroin
fix, and that's how the people will view it." Once again, a
direct quote was used to express an opinion and emotions.
In the call-in comments column, similar quips on
following days added to the story through direct quotes from
citizens. The comments would not have been out of place if
they had been inserted into the original story to represent
views of members of the public. One reader, for example,
exclaimed in the paper's "Sound Off" column: "Every time
you turn around in [this city], somebody wants to tax
somebody. How about going into downsizing and making our
system a little more efficient?" The following day, a
27
"Sound Off" caller suggested what was needed instead was a
"stupidity tax on politicians."
Unsupported opinions are not usually considered
effective arguments for persuading people who disagree. It
would take an audience response study, however, to determine
whether letters to the editor that include both opinions and
factual information can be any more effective in persuading
citizens towards a particular political belief or choice.
Do the conversational attributes of called-in comments
differ from those of letters to the editor?
The data show considerable differences between some aspects
of called-in comments and letters to the editor, suggesting
that something is being contributed by the call-in column.
It is not simply an oral version of letters to the editor.
Callers seem to some extent to talk about different things
than letter writers write about. They also seem to respond
differently to items in the paper. Letter writers appear
more involved in the considered opinions of editorialists
and political columnists, whereas callers tend to be more
interested in responding to the news stories, or at least to
each other. Callers seem to be more local in their
interests.
On the negative side, callers' comments are presented
in abbreviated sound bite format, so what appears in print
is rarely more than a brief "sounding off." This contrasts
28
with the more carefully developed reasoning of a letter
(Reinken, 1994).
Conclusion
There is potential for call-in comment lines to be
important extensions of the public conversation and the
results of this study suggest that they are worth pursuing
as one of the experiments Anderson argues are needed to
"encourage and provoke participation" in news production
and, hence, the creation of reality. The popularity of one
newspaper's "Sound Off" column and the evidence found here
of vigorous exchanges of opinion about public issues suggest
that people are indeed interested in public affairs and will
participate in public discussions if given the opportunity.
People apparently are searching for a means to express
themselves and have a hunger for unfiltered conversation and
public debate (Viladas, 1992; Barone and Schrof, 1990).
Providing opportunity might include eliminating the barriers
of the traditional letters to the editor column. Letters
require more time than a phone call and a certain level of
writing ability, which can be intimidating to some who would
otherwise contribute to public discussions. The anonymity
of call-in comments appears to inspire participation as
well.
The findings here also suggest, however, that newspaper
editors ought to consider ways to improve the quality of the
conversation generated by the call-in lines. If the purpose
29
of public discourse is to allow a community of equals to
"discover and validate what they can collectively consider
true," as Clark (1990) suggests, then more than verbal
spitballs of emotion, fired without the validating force of
evidence, will be needed. A community cannot reach
understandings without a vigorous give-and-take of
information and persuasive rhetoric. Without understanding,
a community cannot be sustained.
This study suggests that more research into call-in
comment lines is needed and would yield important results
because we would learn better how to use this popular format
to further public dialogue. We need to learn more about the
selection process that determines which comments get
published as well as the characteristics of those who
participate with comments and what benefits they receive
from their participation.
30
Notes
1Only "Sound Off" columns appearing on the opinion page
or on Page 2 were included in the study. "Sound Off"
originally appeared as a regular feature on the opinion
page, but moved to Page 2 in mid-September during the study
period. The daily studied is the Mobile, Alabama, Register
and Sunday Press-Register. It had a daily circulation of
64,674 (combined circulation with the afternoon Press, which
carries the same "Sound Off" column was 93,272). Sunday
circulation was 116,003 (Editor and Publisher Yearbook
1994). Occasionally, the paper runs a special "Sound Off"
column on a different page in addition to the regular
feature. This is used to accommodate an unusually large
number of calls made in connection with a major news story.
This occurred at least once during the study period when a
special column was published to accommodate some of the
calls concerning the murder of two young brothers in South
Carolina after the paper carried a news story indicating
that their mother, Susan Smith of Union, S.C., had confessed
to the killings (Mobile Register after the paper carried a
news story indicating that their mother, Susan Smith of
Union, S.C., had confessed to the killings (Mobile Register,
Nov. 6, 1994, 12A). These were not included in the study to
avoid skewing the data. In addition, the paper also carried
a "Sound Off" column on sports as a regular feature on the
sports pages. These comments were not included in the data
and therefore the data may be skewed in favor of non-sports
subjects.
2Length was measured by counting all words of 3 letters
or more. Focus was divided into "local" (city, county, or
regional issues), "state," "national," "international," and
"general." Comments were coded as national if they
concerned U.S. foreign policy and actions in foreign
countries. General was reserved for comments that were not
tied to a particular geographical area. Subject matter was
coded as "politics/government" (elections, government
actions, policies, regulations, laws, or deliberations);
"education" (elementary, secondary, or higher education
issues, whether concerning public or private schools,
colleges, and universities); "justice system/public safety"
(crime, traffic control, trials, corrections, emergency
response, legal deliberations); "health care" (preventative
care, medical treatment, medical and/or hospital policies,
health insurance providers); "media" (news judgment,
performance of media, compliments or complaints about
articles, editorials, or columns that ran in the paper or
particular reporters or editors); "quality of life"
(entertainment, arts, sports, community relations, race
relations, parks and recreation facilities);
"business/economy" (particular businesses or industries,
31
performance of the economy, jobs, interest rates);
"religion/churches" (religious beliefs or practices, events
sponsored by a church or churches); and "other" (any issues
that did not fit within those coded for). Abortion was
always coded as "politics/government" rather than "health
care" because the discussion usually concerned governmental
policies concerning the availability and legality of
abortion.
Reciprocity involved whether or not the comment or
letter overtly or by implication referred to a previous item
in the paper. Coding was done for "news story," "event not
covered in the paper," "editorial" (the institutional
opinion of the newspaper published on the opinion page);
"local columnist" (regular local columnists including
editors of the paper who regularly write a column, guest
columnists from the community); "syndicated columnist"
(nonstaff-produced opinion columns syndicated to more than
one newspaper); "`Sound Off' comment" (a previously
published comment in the "Sound Off" column); "letter to the
editor" (letter from reader published on the opinion page);
"unclear" (a reference was being made but it is unclear to
the coder what it is); "not applicable" (comment or letter
did not refer to any previously published item); and "other"
(refers to previously published item not coded for).
Character was coded as "oppositional" if the comment or
letter was called-in or written to present an opposing view
to a position that appeared in an item previously published;
"supportive" if the comment or letter offered praise or
support for the position taken in a previously published
item; "neutral" if the comment or letter was not referencing
a previously published item or it the comment or letter
added opinion or fact that did not obviously oppose or
support a previously published position.
Quality was coded as "opinion" if the comment or letter
offered no facts that could be verified; "factual
information" if the comment or letter offered verifiable
information and no opinion; "both" if the comment or letter
included both opinion and factual information; and "query"
if the comment or letter simply asked a question (rhetorical
questions were coded as opinions).
3Political party was coded as "Democrat" if the comment
or letter specifically positioned the caller or writer as a
member of the Democratic Party, or if the comment or letter
specifically criticized a Republican office holder or
candidate or members of that party or specifically supported
a Democratic office holder or candidate or members of that
party. It was coded "Republican" if it did just the
opposite, declaring support for Republicans or criticizing
Democrats. It was coded "Other" if it stated clear support
for a political party other than Democratic or Republican.
It was coded "Neither" if no specific political party was
supported or criticized by the comment or letter, which may
have been because the issue was not political in nature or
because the caller or writer did not specifically indicate
32
political party support. For purposes of analysis, the
"other" was added to the "neither" because only 1 "other"
was coded.
Social philosophy was coded as "conservative" if the
comment or letter overtly expressed support for a social
policy that is usually considered politically conservative,
such as opposition to welfare, support for limited
government, support of "family values," support of free
enterprise, opposition to abortion. It was coded "liberal"
if the comment or letter overtly expressed support for a
social policy that is usually considered politically
liberal, such as support for an active government, support
for abortion, support for welfare, support for an expansive
civil rights policy, protection of the environment and
worker rights. It was coded "neither" if a social
philosophy was clearly being advocated, but it could not be
considered conservative or liberal, such as support for
strong and effective law enforcement. It was coded
"unclear" if a social philosophy was obviously being
advocated but it was unclear to the coder whether the
philosophy was conservative, liberal, or some other. It was
coded "not applicable" if the comment or letter did not
discuss the issue being considered from an ideological
viewpoint. For purposes of analysis, the "neither" and
"unclear" were added together because of their similarity
and because only 9 "neither" were coded.
4Whistle-blowing was coded in the positive if the
comment or letter revealed information that appeared to be
previously nonpublic information that someone or some entity
was trying to keep secret. One whistle-blowing comment and
8 whistle-blowing letters were coded. Editor's note was
coded positive if the newspaper published such a note
immediately following the comment or letter. Only 4
editor's notes were coded. They all followed "Sound Off"
comments.
5While it wasn't tested whether letter writers also
called the call-in comment line, it seems it would have to
be rare if not highly unlikely that all the letter writers
on one day also would have call-in comments published on
that day. But even if they did, that would still allow for
another 8 individuals to be represented in the call-in
column. Furthermore, on days such as Nov. 6, when
additional "Sound Off" comments and letters to the editor
were published on a separate page concerning a special
issue, the number of additional voices brought into the
public dialogue increased even further. On Nov. 6, the
paper published 8 additional letters to the editor that were
sent to the paper via electronic mail and 7 additional
called in comments. All were published in a special,
additional column on page 12A under the "Sound Off" logo.
The subject was the confession of Susan Smith to the killing
of her sons.
33
6A leading news writing text advises reporters to use
direct quotes only "when someone says something unique,"
"when someone says something uniquely," or "when someone
important says something important" (Brooks, Kennedy, Moen,
and Ranly, 1992, 120). They are not to be used to convey
information.
_________________
Bibliography
Ahern, P.V., "Talk Radio a Player in Presidential Campaign,"
Broadcasting, June 15, 1992, 14.
Anderson, Rob; Dardenne, Robert; and Killenberg, George M.,
The Conversation of Journalism: Communication,
Community, and News (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994).
Bagdikian, Ben H., The Media Monopoly (Boston: Beacon,
1983).
Barone, M. and Schrof, J.M., "The Changing Voice of Talk
Radio," U.S. News and World Report (Jan. 15, 1990), 51-
53.
Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social
Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology
of Knowledge (New York: Anchor, 1967).
Bogart, Leo, "The American Media System and Its Commercial
Culture," Media Studies Journal: Media At The
Millennium, 5:4 (Fall 1991), 13-33.
______, Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where,
and Why in American Newspapers, 2nd Ed. (Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989).
Brooks, Brian S.; Kennedy, George; Moen, Daryl R.; and
Ranly, Don, News Reporting and Writing, 4th Ed. (New
York: St. Martin's, 1992).
Christians, Clifford G.; Ferr , John P.; and Fackler, P.
Mark, Good News: Social Ethics and the Press (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Clark, Gregory, Dialogue, Dialectic, and Conversation: A
Social Perspective on the Function of Writing
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
1990).
Clark, Roy Peter, "A Call to Leadership: This Document Is
Written at a Time of Trouble for American Journalism
and the Public It Serves," The Poynter Papers: No. 1
(St. Petersburg, Fla.: The Poynter Institute for Media
Studies, 1992).
Cotter, Patrick R.; Perry, David K.; and Stovall, James G.,
"Active and Passive Indicators of Public Opinion:
Assessing the Call-in Poll," Journalism Quarterly, 71:1
(Spring, 1994), 169-175
Curtis, Jeanie, "Sounding Off About Sound Off Callers,"
Mobile (Ala.) Register, Oct. 16, 1994, 2C.
34
Davis, Hal and Rarick, Galen, "Functions of Editorials and
Letters to the Editor," Journalism Quarterly, 41
(1964), 108-109.
Dewey, John, The Public and Its Problems (Chicago: Swallow,
1927).
Forsythe, Sidney A., "An Exploratory Study of Letters to the
Editor and Their Contributors," Public Opinion
Quarterly (Spring 1950), 143-144.
Foster, H. Schuyler Jr. and Friedrich, Carl J., "Letters-to-
the-Editor as a Means of Measuring the Effectiveness of
Propaganda," American Political Science Review, 31
(1937), 71-79.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, The Captive Public: How Mass Opinion
Promotes State Power (New York: Basic, 1986).
Gonzenbach, William J., "The Conformity Hypothesis:
Empirical Considerations for the Spiral of Silence's
First Link," Journalism Quarterly, 69:3 (Fall 1992),
633-645.
Grey, David L. and Brown, Trevor R., "Letters to the Editor:
Hazy Reflections of Public Opinion," Journalism
Quarterly, 47:3 (1970), 450-456, 471.
Habermas, Jurgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.
2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist
Reason, trans. by Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon,
1987).
Hagopian, Arthur, "Sound Off Turns Readers Into
Participants," The Masthead, 45-1 (Spring 1993), 14-15.
Hallin, Daniel C., "Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of
Elections, 1968-1988," Journal of Communication, 42:2
(Spring 1992), 5, 20.
Haskins, Jack B., "People Who Write Letters," Editor &
Publisher (Dec. 2, 1967), 38.
Holloway, Harry with George, John, Public Opinion:
Coalitions, Elites, and Masses, 2nd Ed. (New York: St.
Martin's, 1986).
Keane, John, The Media and Democracy (Cambridge, England:
Polity Press, 1991).
Kellerman, Donald S.; Kohut, Andrew; and Bowman, Carol, The
People, the Press and Politics 1990: A Times Mirror
Political Typology (Washington: Times Mirror Center
for the People and the Press, 1990).
Kincaid, Cliff, "Poll Tries to Discredit Talk Radio," Human
Events, Aug. 14, 1993, 14.
Klempner, John A., "People Who Write In: Communication
Aspects of Opinion-Letter Writing," Ph.D. thesis,
Michigan State University, 1966.
Lambeth, Edmund B., "The News Media and Democracy," Media
Studies Journal: The Fairness Factor, 6:4 (Fall 1992),
161-175.
Larose, Robert and Atkin, David, "Audiotext and the Re-
invention of the Telephone as a Mass Medium,"
Journalism Quarterly, 69:2 (Summer 1992), 413-421.
Lemert, James and Larkin, Jerome, "Some Reasons Why
Mobilizing Information Fails to be in Letters to the
35
Editor," Journalism Quarterly, 56:3 (Fall 1979), 504-
512.
Lewis, Tom, "Triumph of the Idol: Rush Limbaugh and a Hot
Medium," Media Studies Journal: Radio the Forgotten
Medium, 7:3 (Summer 1993), 51-61.
Mead, George Herbert, Mind, Self, and Society, ed. by
Charles W. Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1934).
Miller, Edward D., "The Charlotte Project: Helping Citizens
Take Back Democracy," The Poynter Papers: No. 4 (St.
Petersburg, Fla.: The Poynter Institute for Media
Studies, 1994).
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth, The Spiral of Silence: Public
Opinion -- Our Social Skin (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1984).
Ong, Walter J., Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of
the Word (London: Methuen, 1982).
Pasternack, Steve, "The Open Forum: A Study of Letters to
the Editor and the People Who Write Them," paper
presented to the annual meeting, Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Portland, Ore., July 1988.
Pritchard, David and Berkowitz, Dan, "How Readers' Letters
May Influence Editors and News Emphasis: A Content
Analysis of 10 Newspapers, 1948-1978," Journalism
Quarterly, 68:3 (Fall 1991), 388-395.
Reinken, Charles, "Linguistic Infidels Hurl Verbal Nerf
Balls," The Masthead, 45-1 (Spring 1993), 16-17.
Renfro, Paula Cozort, "Bias in Selection of Letters to
Editor," Journalism Quarterly, 56 (1979), 822-826.
Roberts, Donald; Sikorski, Linda; and Paisley, William,
"Letters in Mass Magazines as `Outcroppings' of Public
Concern," Journalism Quarterly, 46:4 (Winter 1969),
743-752.
Rosen, Jay, "Community Connectedness: Passwords for Public
Journalism," The Poynter Papers: No. 3 (St.
Petersburg, Fla.: The Poynter Institute for Media
Studies, 1993).
Rosenthal, Irving, "Who Writes the `Letters to the Editor'?"
Saturday Review (Sept. 13, 1969), 114-116.
Shepard, Alicia C., "The Gospel of Public Journalism,"
American Journalism Review, Sept. 1994, 28-35.
Shriver, Donald W. Jr., "News of the Neglected," Media
Studies Journal: The Fairness Factor, 6:4 (Fall 1992),
125-135.
Singletary, Michael and Cowling, Marianne, "Letters to the
Editor of the Non-Daily Press," Journalism Quarterly,
56:1 (Spring 1979), 165-167.
_______, "How Public Perceives Letters to the Editor,"
Journalism Quarterly, 53:3 (Fall 1976), 535-537.
Tarrant, William D., "Who Writes Letters to the Editor?"
Journalism Quarterly, 34 (1957), 501-502.
Vacin, Gary L., "A Study of Letter-Writers," Journalism
Quarterly, 42 (1965), 464-465, 510.
36
Viladas, P. "Talk Radio Riding High," Broadcasting (June 15,
1992), 24.
Viles, Peter, "Hosts, Callers Trash Clinton on Talk Radio,"
Broadcasting and Cable (July 12, 1993), 43.
_______, "Talk Listeners Lean To Right," Broadcasting
and Cable (July 26, 1993), 83.
Watson, Bruce, "The Topic for Today: How Much More Talk
Radio Can You Take?" Smithsonian, July 1993, 120.
Williams, Betty Anne, "Sins of Omission," Media Studies
Journal: The Fairness Factor, 6:4 (Fall 1992), 49-56.
|
