Speaking at the June 6 installment of the “Journalism Under Fire” conference series, jointly sponsored by the Missouri School of Journalism and the New School, New York Times public editor Byron E. (Barney) Calame responded to Media Matters for America readers' criticism of recent Times reporting, stating that the Times puts email from Media Matters readers “straight into a folder” because it is “just repetition” and “trying to rack up numbers, which don't impress us.” Calame further stated that “that form of feedback ... will have to go away because they'll find that people aren't paying attention to it.”

Calame was responding to a question from an audience member regarding the effect of the Internet on “the ability of media organizations to connect better with viewers or readers.” He stated that although emails directed by Times readers to the Times public editor are “a real form of feedback,” they are “also easily cheapened.” In apparent reference to Media Matters' recent criticism of his June 4 column, in which he defended reporter Patrick Healy's 2,000-word article purporting to dissect the Clintons' marriage, Calame stated that Media Matters “is saying: 'Hit the public editor because of what he said about the story on the Clintons.” He then noted that “we [the Times] can search for ... phrasing that comes off of the Media Matters website, and when these people [Media Matters readers] pick it up and ... use it in their email, we don't discard it, but we just put it straight into a folder.” He continued:

We promise to read everything that comes in, but if only those are coming from the Media Matters website, that's just repetition, and it's trying to rack up numbers, which don't impress us. So that form of feedback, I think, will have to go away because they'll find that people aren't paying attention to it.

Calame further stated that “the blogosphere” makes “partisan people” “more indignant” about media coverage, convincing them that “they are right,” adding that blogs “encourage” “philosophies that are not well thought out.” Calame contrasted these “partisan” news consumers with “the thoughtful reader,” and the “citizen subscriber or reader citizen,” who is “open to the dialogue” that can take place between a newspaper and its readers. He stated that although the Internet is “making [newspapers] pay more attention,” "[t]he feedback is not as valuable as it could be."

From the June 6 “Journalism Under Fire” conference, as aired on the June 10 edition of C-SPAN's American Perspectives:

QUESTION: I'm curious as to how you feel the Internet has either helped or, in some respects, maybe hindered the ability of media organizations to connect better with viewers or readers.

CALAME: You're so new on BlackBerries, you don't deserve to answer --

PAUL STEIGER [Wall Street Journal managing editor]: This is true.

RUSS MITCHELL [CBS Evening News weekend anchor]: It's blinking, by the way.

CALAME: I think the -- the whole area is really in flux right now. It's -- I think it's a pretty important development at The New York Times, which just a year ago, 13 months ago when I started a blog, they were still trying to keep it out of the paper if they could. In other words, it wasn't in the stylebook. And so, if it wasn't in the stylebook then you couldn't have one, so the Times had no blogs. And -- and what's happened now is, I think you will find 10, maybe a dozen, 14 blogs operating around the website. The public editor finally has a decent looking blog, and -- and so all of that feedback opportunity, I mean it's -- these are Times people posting, but they all provide for comments, moderated comments, which I think the Times is pretty dedicated to, and I think most major papers are. The Washington Post is -- is pretty inclined to stay moderated for the most part, I think. So that seems to be not a kind of feedback that suits all people out in the blogosphere. They don't like to be moderated. They like to have straight access. And I think that over time, that will fade and moderated will be more common. So that will be a real form of feedback.

The -- the emails, as a -- as directed, say, to the public editor or to the ombudsman at some papers or to various editors are a real form of feedback. They are also easily cheapened. In the wake of the Judy Miller, or in the midst of the Judy Miller matter, in one -- about a 48-hour period, the public editor got over 10,000 emails protesting the way that Judy Miller was being treated. This was after the Times tried to write a complete version of everything that had happened, and this is one of those things where a website made it really easy with a couple of clicks, so that kind of email really loses its meaning. And in the public editor's office -- let's see, what's the one that's going now? I forget what it is, but I think Media Matters, a website, is saying: “Hit the public editor because of what he said about the story on the Clintons.” And -- but we can search for -- there's phrasing that comes off of the Media Matters website, and when these people pick it up and copy it and use it in their email, we don't discard it, but we just put it straight into a folder. We promise to read everything that comes in, but if only those are coming from the Media Matters website, that's just repetition, and it's trying to rack up numbers, which don't impress us. So that form of feedback, I think will have to go away because they'll find that people aren't paying attention to it.

The other point that I would close with is, the blogosphere convinces people that they're right, these people who are partisan, they are reinforced by at least one or two people whose blogs they read, and you do tend to read blogs that you agree with, just like you read editorial pages in print that you agree with. And so they feel more indignant. They feel like there's been confirmation. “Joe Jones blogs -- Joe Jones said on his blog this, and I agree and that makes two of us, outweigh all the rest of you.” And that -- I think blogs encourage people to -- to some convictions and -- and philosophies that are not well thought out. If they get one or two blogs, which are very individualistic, to confirm them and that tends to make it more partisan. And it tends to get you away from the thoughtful reader, I call it the citizen subscriber or reader citizen, the person who knows that being a citizen involves reading the newspaper or gathering information to be a good citizen. And they may really disagree, but they really see the function of a citizen as -- as informing yourself. And so they are open to the dialogue that the newspaper is capable of carrying on through an ombudsman or through editors and reporters who take care to respond. So all in all, it's -- it is affecting newspapers, it's making them pay more attention. The feedback is not as valuable as it could be.

A tip from reader A.E. contributed to this item. Thanks, and keep them coming.