Breaking the Media Monopoly

Advocates often complain that news media are recycling half-truths and distortions, giving a platform to the powerful while ignoring other views, parroting fashionable opinions rather than investigating the facts, and generally failing to do their job as journalists – that is, to challenge the conventional wisdom and inform democratic decision-making. These criticisms often have merit, especially in coverage of English language learners (see, e.g., The Bilingual Education Story: Why Can't the News Media Get It Right?).

Yet many media outlets also offer an opportunity – too seldom exploited by advocates for ELLs – to set the record straight. Letters to the editor can be an important tool for reaching members of the public. Opinion pages have long been among the most popular features of newspapers, and they are expanding rapidly via the Internet. Broadcast media, though less generous, sometimes solicit feedback via email or phone (e.g., CNN, CSPAN, National Public Radio).

People who would never read a specialized article or listen to an academic debate can be reached in this way. Well crafted letters have the potential to reframe an issue, publicize little-known facts, and even change minds. Getting them published is your first challenge – not so easy if you're writing to the New York Times or other large newspapers that receive hundreds of letters (if not more) each day. Smaller publications are usually a better bet. All editors, however, are looking for material that will appeal to their readers.

What editors don't want is what they often get – a 500-to-1,000-word screed denouncing the media outlet for its ignorance and/or iniquity. The act of writing this type of letter may be therapeutic but the end result is seldom useful in changing minds. And it almost never gets published.

Crafting letters to the editor that are effective – and likely to appear in print – is an art that's not difficult to learn. But it does require attention to a few important details.

Guidelines for Effective Letter-Writing

1. Keep it short, simple, and civil. Readers who know little about an issue – often those you most hope to reach – tend to be alienated by long columns of print, complicated arguments, and heated exchanges. Bear the audience in mind and compose your message accordingly. For most newspapers, that means sticking to one or two basic points, eliminating unnecessary detail, using language that's accessible to laypersons, and reserving your passion for issues, not personal attacks.

2. Follow rules on word count and other mechanics. Many news outlets have specific guidelines for letters. Consult their web sites to determine what these are before writing. The New York Times, for example, advises:

"Letters to the editor should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications. We do not publish open letters or third-party letters. Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please. ... Letters may be shortened for space requirements."

Observe such rules strictly. Otherwise, it's virtually certain that your letter will not be published.

3. Respond to timely issues in a timely way. The Times is unusual in requiring that letters refer to a recent article, but it's still an excellent idea. News media naturally like to emphasize "news" (or at least their conception thereof). The faster you respond to an article or event – preferably the same day via email – the better your chances of publication. And the more likely that readers will pay attention.

4. Assume that your readers have an open mind and no prior knowledge of the issue. Repeat the factual basics and place them in a clear context. Don't talk down, don't use lofty rhetoric, don't exaggerate. Stay calm and rational. An understated tone is often most effective. Make your case in much the same way as you would to a fair-minded, intelligent, yet uninformed friend. Of course, avoid professional or academic jargon. For an excellent example of this approach, see Stephen Krashen's letter below.

5. Don't attack the competence or motives of the media outlet. However tempted you are to blast a reporter or editorial writer – who may well deserve it – this tactic usually guarantees nonpublication. The New York Times long observed a policy of publishing no criticism whatsoever (no matter how polite) of its news coverage. On the other hand, disagreeing with opinions in a story or editorial, noting factual inaccuracies or omissions, or challenging conclusions on the merits are all fair game.

6. Make sure to state your credentials. Readers will take your ideas on a subject more seriously if you speak from a position of expertise. Include your professional title and affiliation along with your signature. Better yet, incorporate these into the letter itself: "As a 5th grade teacher, I have often observed ..." Credentials equal credibility.

7. Work hard on the writing. If you feel strongly enough about an issue to spend your valuable time writing to a media outlet, devote enough time to make the letter work. A first draft almost never does. Usually it's far too wordy, unfocused, and imprecise. It tries to say too much or forgets to mention critical details. Sometimes the tone is wrong: angry, strident, arrogant, lecturing, moralistic, intolerant. Writing passionately is fine – it can make a letter compelling and convincing – but editing rationally remains essential.

Examples of Effective Letters

Los Angeles Daily News, 28 December 2006

Re "`No Child Behind' needs a new push" (Their Opinions, Dec. 24):

Rep. George Miller's comment "If No Child Left Behind is gone ... America's poor kids will again be forgotten" incorrectly suggests that No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, has helped children of poverty. NCLB has filled schools with excessive and inappropriate tests; has discouraged in-school reading of real books, crucial for children of poverty who have few other sources of books; and has substituted mindless phonics exercises, far more than children need to help them understand what they read.

National test scores confirm that NCLB has not helped poor children. The gap between children from high-income and low-income families is the same as it was before NCLB.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Washington Post, 6 February 2007

Regarding the Feb. 1 Metro article "Va. Is Urged to Obey 'No Child' on Reading Test" and the Jan. 30 editorial "Left Behind":

The No Child Left Behind Act is illustrative of what happens when those who know little about a topic create rules and regulations for those who must do the work. The educational amateurs on Capitol Hill and the bureaucrats at the Education Department created a law that, whatever their intentions, has proved to be unworkable at the classroom level on nearly every front.

The assumption that schools were not addressing issues related to learners with limited English skills before No Child Left Behind is as insulting as it is wrong. Educators have faced waves of immigrant children, from many countries and circumstances, and they have created programs to help assimilate those children into American culture. Forcing such students to take tests that do not measure what they know or that overlook their English-language development is illogical and impairs the progress that everyone wants.

Fairfax County and the other districts in Virginia have not given the law no "regard," as the editorial stated. They have been facing the challenges with determination and dedication as to what is best for children.

PAUL D. HOUSTON
Executive Director
American Association
of School Administrators
Arlington