The Trump presidency has sparked a debate about which voices are — and aren’t — reflected in the national media. Many publications have been criticized for publishing too narrow a range of opinions. And several publications, including The Times, The Atlantic and The Washington Post, have recently made high-profile conservative hires.

I recently asked Times readers for their thoughts on the issue: Which opinions are underrepresented in the national media? And which if any should remain underrepresented because they’re beyond the pale of productive discourse?

We have received almost 1,000 responses, via email and social media. Here, we describe some common themes from those replies:

The national media should expand the boundaries of the debate — to both the right and left, among other ways.

This was perhaps the most common response. There should be more writing from both pro-Trump conservatives and Jacobin-level socialists, as one reader, Andrew Ross, put it — “even though” (or maybe especially because) “elite readers may find their arguments objectionable.” Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab, called for a better airing of the “views of people whose politics are more than one standard deviation from the national mean.” A Twitter user named Rust Belt Jacobin summarized the missing as: “Leftists; Trump supporters; Latinos; working-class people.”

In the 2016 Democratic primaries, for example, Bernie Sanders excited millions of people and won about 43 percent of the popular vote. Yet most national publications employed few if any opinion writers who preferred him over Hillary Clinton. Only a smattering of editorial boards endorsed Sanders: The San Francisco Examiner, The Seattle Times, The Daily Iowan and several alternative weeklies.