Turf wars
Rhetorical struggle over `prepared' letters to the editor
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7478064 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Bill Reader (Ohio University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 606-623 |
| Publication date | 2008-08-21 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journalism (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1464-8849 • E-ISSN: 1741-3001 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1464884908094161 |
| OpenAlex | W2080687880 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 16 |
The study analyzes professional disagreements over the value of `prepared' letters to the editor, or pre-written letters that supporters of advocacy campaigns can sign and submit to newspapers as their own opinions. Journalists derisively call such letters `astroturf' and disdain the `fake grass-roots' nature of such letters; advocates suggest such `sample letters' help more people to get involved in public discourse. Through an open-ended textual analysis of texts from both camps, the author finds a rhetorical struggle between the two groups that forms a hegemonic concordance through which letters-to-the-editor forums are seen more as battlefields to be defended or conquered than as sites for consensus-seeking debate, which in the end feeds or reflects the hostile and monopolistic nature of modern public discourse
Art · Hegemony · Literature · Media studies · Newspaper · Pejorative · Political science · Politics · Rhetorical question · Sign (mathematics · Sociology · Value (mathematics · Media Studies and Communication · Rhetoric and Communication Studies · Social Media and Politics · Law
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,18 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2018 (4) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |