S-R suggestion box overflows with ideas

In the last few months we’ve gotten many letters which reference the distressing downsizing that took place at The Spokesman-Review last November because of revenue difficulties. As might be expected, the vast majority of these letters went on to explain to us the obvious reason revenue is (and should be) declining. Some of these letters were printed here, several were included in our Ask the Editors blog, and some, for various reasons, couldn’t be published. A sampling:

“ “You won’t investigate the issues thoroughly and then report the lies of national media!”

“ In other, much larger papers, “world events are printed on the front page, rather than three sections inward.”

“ “We are inundated with such a majority of jerk-kneed liberals that a rare Cal Thomas column is like a breath of fresh air. Bring back some balance and just maybe your circulation might increase.”

“ “My suggestion to your editors is that you should get out of the office and talk to people to see what you can do to return your publication to a quality one.”

“ “I understand that times are tough in the newsprint business these days, but do you really think that cuts like this will increase readership or advertising dollars? I don’t get it, and I’m very disappointed.”

Lots of readers are very disappointed. So are lots of journalists. None of us, including those who made the tough decisions, were happy to see columns disappear and other types of content cut back. We don’t like becoming a smaller team that necessarily produces less.

I had an “aha” moment reading over these letters. It wasn’t a comfortable one. It was: “This must be what it’s like to be a politician.”

Here’s an excerpt from the letter that inspired the connection: “One anonymous legislator complained about the bill, adding that he was advised to vote yea so he wouldn’t anger voters. He voted yea. (Hmm. What else does he do in exchange for votes?)”

How many hundreds of letters have we seen, particularly during the recent local elections but also in national and state contests, complaining that the politicians in question don’t listen to or care about their constituents? Yet it is indeed shocking when a politician does something “in exchange for votes” – in essence, because it would please voters.

How very similar to the familiar accusation that the S-R prints a variety of irrelevant, sensationalist drivel just to “sell newspapers.” Putting aside the debate on what is or is not relevant, can the necessity of selling newspapers be dismissed out of hand? Next to our handful of die-hard detractors, how many believe this community is better served when the S-R fails to sell enough papers to maintain our former volume of quality content?

While under pressure to keep their product relevant and appealing, journalists must also take seriously their Fourth Estate responsibilities to hold powerful, and sometimes popular, institutions accountable.

Likewise, politicians must wrestle with the basic question of which type of representation they offer voters: delegate (in which the representative’s actions are directed in detail by his constituents’ desires, regardless of circumstances or his personal opinion) or trustee (in which constituents select a wise and trustworthy person to advocate what are, in her own judgment, their best interests).

Presidential candidates in the primaries are criticizing each other for changing their positions on particular issues over time, but if these politicians are delegates of the people, their actions can be expected to change along with changes in public opinion. One person’s “wishy-washy” is another’s “responsive.”

Moreover, like him or hate him, President Bush presents himself as a trustee: he has repeatedly bucked prevailing public opinion in favor of his conscience. (I’ll leave it to his detractors to describe in the most animated, colorful manner what Bush’s conscience must be like.)

Goodness knows I have no love for the games politicians do – sometimes it appears they must – play. But now I also sympathize with their position between the rock of their own limitations and the hard place of public opinion. A balance between extremes based on trust between politician and voter, journalist and reader, is a lofty but worthwhile goal.

So maybe I’ll run for public office. It pays better.