3 ms·

> Basically to criticize a piece of work was reserved to a few professional critics writing in newspapers. It was common to write replies in long form and mai

> Basically to criticize a piece of work was reserved to a few professional critics writing in newspapers. It was common to write replies in long form and mail then into newspapers, which would then publish them.

NetToolKit 7y ago
> which would then publish them Only if the newspapers themselves allowed it. Newspapers could suppress public criticism that came their way through this channel if they so chose.
- jfengel 7y ago
  For a long time, there were multiple newspapers in each city. They would love to catch each other in mistakes. If one paper wouldn't publish criticism, the others would. These weren't just yellow-journalism tabloids, but two or even three genuine competing reporting organizations. They fought to be the first to publish, but couldn't afford to simply publish falsehoods, or fail to admit mistakes. Not that they were paragons of honor all the time. They're humans. But it did set up a pattern of keeping each other honest, which they maintained to a large degree after they could no longer sustain multiple papers. That has diminished substantially as they're competing against Internet-style "move fast, break things, nobody cares what you wrote yesterday" publishing (and before that, 24 hour TV that wants to present a constant crisis so that you must never turn it off). So there was less "suppressing public criticism" than you seem to be implying. It happened, to be sure, but it was very different from the current self-swallowing echo chambers you get today -- at least among the major newspapers. Modern journalism, even the comparatively mainstream stuff, has a lot more in common with those yellow journalism tabloids.
carlmr 7y ago
That's a good point I didn't even think of, however it may have been subject to censorship and editing by the newspaper staff and would have limited reach for most newspapers, not a global audience. Also I don't think I ever wrote a response to any newspaper in pre internet times, that's a lot of work just to be heard.
- GrinningFool 7y ago
  I did a couple of 'letter to the editor' that got published in those dark and dusty times. I don't recall any editing and there was no censoring, but they did get to determine which letters were published. It was fun, and I certainly _felt_ like I was being heard - first when I saw my words in print, and again when selected replies would get published a week later or so. Ultimately, I suppose not so different than posting to $platform_of_choice and waiting for replies/retweets/etc. Just slower.

NetToolKit 7y ago

> which would then publish them Only if the newspapers themselves allowed it. Newspapers could suppress public criticism that came their way through this channel if they so chose.

jfengel 7y ago
For a long time, there were multiple newspapers in each city. They would love to catch each other in mistakes. If one paper wouldn't publish criticism, the others would. These weren't just yellow-journalism tabloids, but two or even three genuine competing reporting organizations. They fought to be the first to publish, but couldn't afford to simply publish falsehoods, or fail to admit mistakes. Not that they were paragons of honor all the time. They're humans. But it did set up a pattern of keeping each other honest, which they maintained to a large degree after they could no longer sustain multiple papers. That has diminished substantially as they're competing against Internet-style "move fast, break things, nobody cares what you wrote yesterday" publishing (and before that, 24 hour TV that wants to present a constant crisis so that you must never turn it off). So there was less "suppressing public criticism" than you seem to be implying. It happened, to be sure, but it was very different from the current self-swallowing echo chambers you get today -- at least among the major newspapers. Modern journalism, even the comparatively mainstream stuff, has a lot more in common with those yellow journalism tabloids.

carlmr 7y ago

That's a good point I didn't even think of, however it may have been subject to censorship and editing by the newspaper staff and would have limited reach for most newspapers, not a global audience. Also I don't think I ever wrote a response to any newspaper in pre internet times, that's a lot of work just to be heard.

GrinningFool 7y ago
I did a couple of 'letter to the editor' that got published in those dark and dusty times. I don't recall any editing and there was no censoring, but they did get to determine which letters were published. It was fun, and I certainly _felt_ like I was being heard - first when I saw my words in print, and again when selected replies would get published a week later or so. Ultimately, I suppose not so different than posting to $platform_of_choice and waiting for replies/retweets/etc. Just slower.