Work hard to keep readers involved.

Since beginning my column with the Los Angeles Times Syndicate 11 1/2 years and 400 newspapers ago, I have noticed an improvement in the diversity of ideas on most op-ed pages - especially those papers that carry my column! - but a perception remains among many readers (and those who have become non-readers) that too many journalists are aloof and insensitive to their concerns.

Such people also believe that too many editors think they are better equipped to tell people what they believe instead of doing a better job reflecting what their readers believe.

This is not theory or supposition. When traveling, I ask people whether they read their newspapers and, if they do, if they read the editorial page. Many, sometimes most, do not.

When asked why, they respond that the paper and/or the editorial page never considers their viewpoint as having any validity. After writing letters to the editor, they have given up. Some have stopped buying the paper.

In an age of closings, increasing newsprint costs, staff layoffs, and other attempts to trim expenses, we can't afford to lose subscribers if their only reason for not reading is that they do not feel included in the "diversity" mix about which they hear so much.

The Portland Press Herald in Maine has open editorial board meetings. Members of the public are invited to attend. Readers may not always agree with the editorials, but they leave feeling their views have been considered.

Out of the tower

I have long felt that editors need to escape the ivory tower and begin hanging out in places where the public lives. At the church I attend, we had a "media night" that included the editors of The Washington Times, former U.N. ambassador and now columnist Jeane Kirkpatrick, PBS president Ervin Duggan, and myself. The event drew 1,000 people. It was one of the most energized meetings I have ever attended. The crowd loved it. The one newspaper represented reaped several new subscriptions and improved its public image.

Editors should regularly meet with the public. They should bring with them subscription cards and tell those who don't subscribe that the only way they can contribute to the public debate is to be part of that debate.

I am an example of what can happen when journalism becomes a two-way street. One of the questions most often asked of me is, as a conservative, how did I get into so many newspapers? The question presumes that the press reflects a liberal bias and that it bars conservative opinion.

My response is that I stopped complaining. Instead of seeing journalism as a monolith, I saw journalists as individuals and began approaching editors as people and not as part of a group. It helped that my column began at a time of major change in the country and that my ideas were getting a lot of coverage on front pages and editorial pages.

When editors saw that I didn't have two heads, had graduated from a recognized university, and had professional experience and communications skills, many decided to give my column a try. Most report spectacular results, saying they receive many letters about my column, pro and con.

When I tell audiences that I am appearing in their newspaper, I encourage them to subscribe, if they are not already, and to join the debate by writing letters to the editor. This is my small contribution to keeping the circulation numbers up and "my people" engaged.

More grunt work

More editors need to do this grunt work if they want their papers to survive. Beyond attending civic clubs like Rotary and Kiwanis, editors should participate in forums similar to the one held at my church. I believe we can win back the disaffected and the non-subscriber - even in the television and computer age - if we will "evangelize" them, making them feel they are important to us and actively seek their trust and their business.

The alternative is too depressing to contemplate. If we don't win them back, more newspapers will close and the intense debate the Founders believed would be encouraged by a free and unfettered press will be no more.

There has always been a link between a free press and a free people. But the concept of a free press is meaningless if the money isn't there to produce the product.

Many talk a good game about their open-mindedness and commitment to diversity. For some readers, that diversity includes everyone but them. Even if our motive is nothing higher than self-preservation, we had better escape our fortresses and start hanging out with people whose views and values we may editorially oppose, or we will lose something precious and vital to America's past and future.

NCEW member Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist.