An Editorial Opinion

Maybet there's a subliminal message in the Pulitzer judges' failure to pick a winner for editorial writing. It's probably unintentional, but perhaps the conclusion that can be drawn is that the unsigned newspaper editorial simply has become an anachronism.

Newspaper editorials made some sense decades ago when papers were run by proprietor/publishers who wanted to advance their personal causes, or when readers had far fewer voices of opinion to help them shape their own views.

But today, most newspapers are corporate-owned and have no proprietary axes to grind, and there's no shortage of opinions for readers to choose from—courtesy of columnists, blogs, TV's talking heads, talk radio, etc. Hell, we're drowning in opinions. In that atmosphere, the stately unsigned newspaper editorial seems superfluous, no matter how well-executed. Ironically, in an era when there seems to be an appetite for opinion, personality-free newspaper editorials seem quaint—and unnecessary.

Moreover, editorials cause problems for the rest of the newspaper. You can explain the separation of editorial opinion-makers from news reporting until you're blue in the face, but readers still believe that the paper's editorial stance drives news coverage (that itself is a throwback to the proprietor/publisher era, when it indeed was true). Even where that separation is most structurally distinct, at the nation's largest papers, there is consistent reader confusion. It's even worse, no doubt, at smaller papers where the line between the editorial page and the news operation is more blurred.

This confusion is most apparent in an election year, when newspaper editorial pages take it upon themselves to endorse candidates—another unfortunate anachronism. It's hard for the average reader to believe that a paper that has endorsed candidate A is capable of objectively covering candidate B. That's just human nature. It's bad enough that critics of mainstream media see bias in every sentence of every story; layering editorial opinion on top of that is just asking for trouble.

There are a handful of papers that have done away with institutionalized editorials—USA Today is perhaps the most notable to eschew them—but it's time for all papers to look hard at this dinosaur. In a time of stringent cost-cutting, the editorial board and its unsigned opinions may be an unaffordable luxury (and I'm not even sure luxury is the right word, for all the damage editorials do to credibility). In a few years, maybe the Pulitzer for editorial writing will finally go the way of this editorial dodo.

Comments

[Charles Barthold]

I agree with your overall point but I have found the editorial pages of at least the good papers to be the last bastion of quality persuasive writing.

Most of what you read (and see and hear) in today's media is frantic yelling and screaming.

There's nothing better than seeing how a talented editorial writer can attempt to persuade you to understand his or her opinion.

It's a true artform.

[Harry Allan]

I agree that the editorial would be unmourned. But I have some sympathy for those editorials that seek to persuade as opposed to admonish. I'm a bit right of center and can appreciate a WP attempt to engaging me. I have given up on the scolds at the NYT. This notwithstanding that the NYT is excellent "in parts."

[Dave Mastio]

Mark, I am glad we finally have something to disagree about.

First USA Today has not abandoned the institutional editorial. Here's a link to today's: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/
Note the prominent "Our Opinion" at the top of the first item. (I used to work for the opinion section there.)

USA Today has done a couple things that might be usefully copied. First, almost every day, they make room for an opposing view in the editorial stack. Second, the editorial board "ideology," is to look at what works and always argue from that practical perspective. They also try to avoid topics where opinions are hardened unless they are so big in the news that they're unavoidable. USA Today also does not endorse.

Your best point is about the confusion and accusations of bias engendered by newspapers taking "official" positions. If abandoning editorials would make that go away, you might have a case.

Bias complainers would just turn to examining the newspapers staff columnists, measuring the column inches for each side on op-ed, counting letters to the editor etc. Unless you want to replace editors with calculators that exactly apportion all opinion content equally, the problem won't go away.

[Dave Mastio]

so continuing my bloviation here ...

What is important, is that newspaper opinion sections leap into the digital age.

Newspaper opinion sections don't get enough credit for the fact that they did everything a good blog did before desktop computers were invented, let alone common -- editorials (blog post), letters to the editor (comments), opeds (links to what others are saying).

The amount of innovation out there in newspaper opinion sections is incredible. You've heard of this beat-blogging thing? The Seattle Post Intelligencer started posting budget lines for its editorials in advance in order to get readers involved in shaping them and providing new information (crowd sourcing before it was cool.) Others have followed the lead. The Dallas Morning News started a blog written by all its editorial board members revealing who the institutional we actually are (is?) and making it plain that the writers disagree with each other. The Kansas City Star gave its cartoonist a blog and lets him publish his rejected cartoons. The Virginian-Pilot publishes all of its letters to the editor as blog posts at bletters.com so each letter can become the beginning of a conversation, not the end.

Newspaper editorials are also not the kind of commodity content that is easily replaced with the wire. There's no reason for every newspaper to have a TV critic, movie critic, critic critic, but there is plenty of reason for a newspaper to have a group of people who examine the details of the school bond issue and take a stand one way or the other -- and then go on to host the debate on the issue. Good editorials are about being local, local, local and providing a unique reason to come to the paper.

Last -- almost with out exception, the media success stories of the last 20 years have come from opinionated media -- the rise of talk radio, Fox News, the blogosphere, Fark, HuffingtonPost ...

I think a smarter publisher would be coming up with a strategy to expand the local opinion section. With the who, what, why, when, where already covered by the instant media, newspapers are going to have to adapt by providing more depth and more opinion and analysis.

[Larry Reisman]

Mark:

Editorials are the heart, soul and conscience of a newspaper, perhaps even a community.

Good editorial campaigns improve communities, help the downtrodden and rouse people to action. They spur change.

Dave Mastio -- a true innovator -- is right again.

I've been involved in editorial pages for almost 20 years in a medium-sized market and have seen how the bully pulpit can help.

Credibility? People always are going to second-guess what you do. Newspapers have credibility issues because they don't communicate well enough with readers, don't explain why and how they do things, etc.

At most local newspapers, the readers you have on your side one day are against you on the next issue.

Every good editorial is going to upset people on the other side. At most good newspapers, this won't be a red/blue thing, because these media organizations are focusing on local or state issues (many of which are not focused on red or blue dogma).

I think what hurts editorial pages is bad reporting, wishy-washy stands and boring writing.

Good editorials beat the heck out of good talk radio every day. Readers we've surveyed say newspapers are more credible than other forms of media -- just ask them about how low blogs (in general) are on the credibility totem pole.

As for publishers (editorial boards) it's not a matter of having "axes to grind," but doing the right thing for your community. Sounds idealistic, perhaps, but that's how many of us look at our craft.

I'll chalk up your thoughts -- in a respectful manner -- to naivete.

Cut out the heart, soul and conscience. What's left?

[Mark]

"Editorials are the heart, soul and conscience of a newspaper, perhaps even a community." With all due respect, I think that's the statement that reflects naivete--and not a small amount of arrogance. It's the community's opinions that are far more important--and interesting.

[S.E.D.]

"At most local newspapers, the readers you have on your side one day are against you on the next issue. Every good editorial is going to upset people on the other side. At most good newspapers, this won't be a red/blue thing, because these media organizations are focusing on local or state issues (many of which are not focused on red or blue dogma)."

This isn't the experience in our community. The newspaper (a Lee paper) is essentially a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. It never deviates from the party line. The vast majority of its columns and cartoons also have a left-of-center perspective. Unfortunately, I don't think that's atypical.

[David Mechanik]

It's not the newspaper editorial that is outdated, it is the practice of not identifying the author. It is easy to offer opinions when one can hide behind the "group" known as the editorial board. The editiorials are useful, just let us know who writes them.

[Matt Dietrich]

At my paper, the names of all the editorial board members appear in the masthead directly above the editorial, so I don't think anonymity is an issue with us. I don't think the problem is that editorials are personality free; it's more that they too often have the personality of a person you would move away from on the bus. What's worse, this person is often worked into a state of high dudgeon when medium-low dudgeon would suffice and is perched upon the highest horse in the pasture when a donkey is more suited for the job. I think the self-righteous tone of many editorials is obsolete, not the form itself. And from my experience with local issues, sometimes an editorial is the only place in the paper where you can freely state the obvious -- providing a valuable "emporer has no clothes" statement. These are often the ones that get the most response from the online commentariat.

[Neil Munro]

Even before becoming the editorial writer for a 75-thousand circulation daily, I convinced the publisher and editor that the editorials should be signed. I argued that not to sign them strongly implied that they were the collective wisdom of some sort of board of elders who had plenty of time to examine and ponder the issues of the day when that was far from the truth: One harried little man did his best, on his own, while the higher ups were otherwise occupied. Our readers seemed to appreciate what some said they saw as the honesty of the change. And they liked to know who to call when they had complaints, or compliments. That went on for nearly 30 years. Then the paper was sold and the new owners insisted on editorial anonymity. A little later, under cover of this, they "retired" me.

[Joseph Dolman]

Bad editorial writing isn't any more defensible than sloppy news writing or journalistic malpractice of any kind. And it's true that too many editorial pages are filled with cliches, conventional wisdom, declarations of the obvious and other brain-dead stuff.

But the 23 years I spent writing editorials did teach me how a good editorial page serves not only as the heart and soul of a community but also as its guardian. More than a few politicians have told me over the years that they refrained from casting a dubious vote not because of the negative newspage coverage they were certain to get but because of the relentless ridicule they knew they would suffer in editorials.

It's fine - maybe necessary - for newspapers to list editorial board members somewhere on their pages. But it's crucial for newspapers to preserve unsigned editorials. When newspapers speak as community institutions, and when they choose their words well, they still have an impact far greater than any particular writer could have. They shouldn't thoughtlessly squander this power.

[David Mechanik]

Matt Dietrich is on target. A writer might pontificate less and offer more thoughtful opinions if his name was identified. However, merely identifying the entire editorial board defeats the purpose. Just as the Supreme Court does on important cases, I would indentify the author and other editorial board members could concur or not.

[Miss Havisham]

My favorite reading is that of the editorial page especially when it an owned and individual opinion. Similarly, in researching legal precedence, the court ruling and especially the dissenting opinion plates some of the best meat and potatoes. Those justices or authors over time begin to reveal a habit of character, and those nuances-even predictabilities are a fascination to this reader.
It's food for thought, literally.

[Mondy]

I think all the commenters are forgetting that op-ed consists of op and ed, and the post was about ed, not op.

[David Mechanik]

The idea behind an editorial (verus an opinion piece) is that is has the weight of the newspaper, or, at least, the editorial board behind it, a key distinction. No one has suggested that editorials give way to opinion pieces exclusively. Indeed, the editorial board should decide what editorial would be written, as it normally would. I am only suggesting the the author's name appear on the piece.

[Dave Mastio]

David,

Part of the problem with signing names is that the person who writes the editorial doesn't always agree with it. I have had that problem more than a few times as the farthest to the right person on a generally left-leaning editorial board. Even when I agreed with what I wrote, some of the nuances would not be points I would make and then there is the whole editing process where top editors often radically reshape a piece to fit their view of how it should have been written.

[Matt Dietrich]

If you sign the editorials, it's just another op-ed column, though one without a headshot of the writer. I write all our edits but the other editorial board members see them before they run and sometimes offer suggestions that lead to changes. If I wrote my own column, I know that I'd approach the same topics much differently than I do writing an edit on behalf of the editorial board.