Carpenter Laura M
Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Qual Health Res. 2009 Apr;19(4):519-34. doi: 10.1177/1049732309332646.
In this article I use the case of male circumcision (MC) to examine how grassroots activists, medical professionals, other stakeholders, and ordinary people employ letters to the editor (LTEs) to influence public health debates. I also show how journalistic practices affect the use of LTEs. Seventy LTEs about MC from U.S. newspapers between 1985 and 2006 are analyzed using qualitative methods. Pro-MC, anti-MC, and neutral LTE writers supported their stances on similar grounds, described adversaries as biased, and stressed medical and scientific authority. Yet only MC advocates and neutralists trivialized MC and declined to justify their stances, suggesting distinctive dynamics for LTEs about widely accepted practices. The prevalence of debated practices and activists' efforts to piggyback on related issues also affect LTE content. Editors chose LTEs to address readers' critiques, enact news values like balance and controversy, and showcase writers with strong claims to legitimacy, thereby mediating public health debates.
在本文中，我以男性包皮环切术（MC）为例，探讨基层活动家、医学专业人员、其他利益相关者以及普通民众如何利用读者来信（LTEs）来影响公共卫生辩论。我还展示了新闻实践如何影响读者来信的使用。运用定性方法分析了1985年至2006年间美国报纸上70封关于男性包皮环切术的读者来信。支持男性包皮环切术、反对男性包皮环切术以及持中立态度的读者来信作者在类似的理由上支持他们的立场，将对手描述为有偏见的，并强调医学和科学权威。然而，只有男性包皮环切术的倡导者和中立者轻视男性包皮环切术且拒绝为他们的立场辩护，这表明关于广泛接受的做法的读者来信存在独特的动态。有争议做法的普遍性以及活动家在相关问题上搭便车的努力也会影响读者来信的内容。编辑选择读者来信以回应读者的批评、践行平衡和争议等新闻价值，并展示具有强烈合法性主张的作者，从而对公共卫生辩论进行调解。
