Newspapers are like mirrors that reflect the world back to us, but they are also windows that provide us with a snapshot of the thoughts and feelings of our fellow citizens.

Letters to the editor, or LTEs, serve as this window. They provide a platform for people to share their opinions, concerns and insights on a variety of topics, whether responding to an article, discussing local issues or sharing personal experiences. They reveal a community's essence.

LTEs can be funny, sad, angry or hopeful. They can be profound or mundane. But they are always authentic. They come from the heart, reflect diversity and allow people to have their voices heard and to participate in the democratic process.

During the American Revolution, LTEs played a crucial role in rallying public support for independence. "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was an exemplary case. They were also used in the Civil Rights Movement to document discrimination and demand equal rights for African Americans. Feminists utilized LTEs in the 1960s to challenge sexism and advocate for women's equal rights. During the 1980s and 1990s, they helped raise global awareness about crucial issues such as the AIDS crisis and freedom of speech. In the 2000s, they centered on war and terror threats, while income inequality criticisms dominated in the 2010s. As we have moved into the 2020s, LTEs have started becoming less common. But why?

Let me explain why.

Today, readers no longer criticize, and papers do not seem to be bothered. It appears a maladaptation of the Fourth Estate that we have always praised. As the managing editor of Daily Sabah, I am concerned about the decline in reader correspondence. My colleagues in Sweden, Qatar and the United States have expressed similar worries. Why do we lack reader criticism?

Culture of criticism

The answer is complex, but I believe the principal cause can be attributed to the declining culture of criticism within the industry. Today’s society appears to be more apathetic and individualistic, with a growing conviction that criticism lacks the power to affect change. In many respects, this view is correct, as change often seems difficult to catch in our world. Over a long period, constructive feedback has had minimal impact on the global stage. The more a reader saw nothing changed, the more they stopped giving feedback.

However, it is precisely this belief or trend that we must challenge. We must encourage individuals to write LTEs, even if they are uncertain whether their critique will have an impact. All perspectives are important. Ultimately, if we are not serving the public interest as journalists, why are we in this profession?

In this day and age, there is yet another issue affecting the success or failure of LTEs. You must have heard about "astroturfing."

Synthetic current

Astroturfing is a manipulative technique that aims to create the perception of grassroots support for a specific cause, product or idea. This deceptive and harmful practice weakens the authenticity of online conversations and the trust we place in the information we come across.

The term "astroturfing" is derived from the synthetic grass known as Astroturf, which was designed to resemble natural grass but is, in fact, artificial. Similarly, astroturfing aims to mimic genuine public sentiment while concealing its true origins and motivations. This practice can take many forms, including fake social media accounts, fabricated user reviews and orchestrated campaigns to sway public opinion.

In 2011, it was revealed that the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) had paid a California company, Ntrepid, to create fake online personas to influence online conversations and spread U.S. propaganda in the regions where the U.S. operates in. CENTCOM claimed that the program, known as Operation Earnest Voice, or OEV, was only used to target audiences outside of the U.S., but critics argued that it was a form of domestic propaganda and that it violated the First Amendment.

The program was exposed by The Guardian newspaper, which obtained leaked documents from Ntrepid. The documents revealed that Ntrepid had created thousands of sock puppets, including social media accounts, profiles and channels. These sock puppets were used to spread pro-American propaganda and to attack critics of the U.S. government.

As one can see, astroturfing is a notorious phenomenon in the world of politics, but it is not limited to the political sphere; it indeed extends its influence across various domains including health care, the environment, and corporate life to technology. And, the media industry, including LTEs, is also vulnerable to it.

In the past week, I've gotten tons of emails from sock puppets, so many that I've lost count, some of which could have included LTEs. Bearing this in mind, editors take a skeptical approach and often dismiss or delete their messages without much thought.

So, what's the future of LTEs, you may ask? It's uncertain, much like predicting the weather in a hurricane. Fakeness is prevalent – and if we don't push back against misrepresentations, we risk losing the cherished tradition of LTEs. This would perpetuate a false consensus and drown out authenticity.

There are two main reasons, as discussed: firstly, readers' reluctance to criticize, and secondly, editors' weariness with an influx of emails from sock puppets. While each side may have valid arguments, it is ultimately up to them to either speak out or succumb to the artificial currents of our time.

Aren’t you aware that we are silently at war with sock puppets? Choose your side carefully.