> Basically to criticize a piece of work was reserved to a few professional critics writing in newspapers.
It was common to write replies in long form and mail then into newspapers, which would then publish them.
It was common to write replies in long form and mail then into newspapers, which would then publish them.
Only if the newspapers themselves allowed it. Newspapers could suppress public criticism that came their way through this channel if they so chose.
These weren't just yellow-journalism tabloids, but two or even three genuine competing reporting organizations. They fought to be the first to publish, but couldn't afford to simply publish falsehoods, or fail to admit mistakes.
Not that they were paragons of honor all the time. They're humans. But it did set up a pattern of keeping each other honest, which they maintained to a large degree after they could no longer sustain multiple papers. That has diminished substantially as they're competing against Internet-style "move fast, break things, nobody cares what you wrote yesterday" publishing (and before that, 24 hour TV that wants to present a constant crisis so that you must never turn it off).
So there was less "suppressing public criticism" than you seem to be implying. It happened, to be sure, but it was very different from the current self-swallowing echo chambers you get today -- at least among the major newspapers. Modern journalism, even the comparatively mainstream stuff, has a lot more in common with those yellow journalism tabloids.
Also I don't think I ever wrote a response to any newspaper in pre internet times, that's a lot of work just to be heard.
It was fun, and I certainly _felt_ like I was being heard - first when I saw my words in print, and again when selected replies would get published a week later or so.
Ultimately, I suppose not so different than posting to $platform_of_choice and waiting for replies/retweets/etc. Just slower.