What’s your opinion on our opinions?
I received an interesting blast from an online reader following our recent editorial called Take back the alleys. He hated the piece, saying it “incites hate toward men.”
More surprising, though, was his outrage that the editorial was “anonymous.”
“I know your response will be ‘well, it’s for the safety of the writer’ not to post their name. Well, if the story is so ridiculous and inciteful that the writer needs to hide then perhaps it shouldn’t be published at all. This is not Journalism, this (is) slanted amateur blogging … .”
Not journalism? Editorials predate Ben Franklin. How many other readers don’t know what an editorial is, I wondered. And how many of you care?
I thought it was time — particularly as this wasn’t the first such blast, and because editorials are under siege these days in shrinking newsrooms — to ask readers what you think.
Newspapers’ first editorials were the opinions of the owner or editor. Even though they were unsigned, you knew exactly where they were coming from.
Early papers had a decidedly political bent and editorials had a mission: Here’s who you should vote for; here’s what you should think on this issue. The news pages were non-partisan; the editorial pages roared.
The Edmonton Journal was born in 1903 with a clear pro-Conservative agenda. Its rival, the Edmonton Bulletin, was pro-Liberal. Those days, like the Bulletin, are long gone.
Over the years as papers became less politicized and media became more mainstream, editorials evolved into the opinion of the publisher or editor (who remains responsible for them today).
Letters — your letters, your opinions — counterbalanced the editorial, crafted daily as the very opposite of a ‘slanted amateur blog’ to represent the collective and informed opinion of the editorial board — the voice of the paper.
Who’s on that board? Senior journalists like the letters page editor, the editor, the comment editor, senior writers, a cartoonist if you’re lucky; these numbers have definitely downsized along with newsrooms.
The Journal’s editorial board is comprised of content editor Kathy Kerr, letters editor Brian Tucker, editorial writer Sarah O’Donnell, cartoonist Malcolm Mayes, contributor David Evans and me.
Every day, a few of us meet to discuss the news of the day, debate topics and determine which tack or perspective to take on an issue. We regularly meet with leaders and decision-makers of all stripes. O’Donnell’s daunting task is to form a wellreasoned consensus from these boards, one offering constructive criticism, fresh perspective and sound public policy.
If another of us feels compelled to opine on behalf of the Journal, we, too, have to make a solid case for that opinion — including Evans, the former editorial board editor who weighs in once a week. Cartoonist Mayes does his own thing from a drafting table at home, though even he submits his cartoon ideas to us early so we know where he’s going. Disagreements with his views are very rare; thankfully the chuckles arrive daily.
Some editors want to abolish editorials. They’re boring, they say, and nobody reads them anymore — a vestige of the past, when patronizing owners proselytized to the masses. Today’s readers don’t need or want to be told what to think — and certainly not how to vote — by their local newspaper. (There’s another agenda to these arguments as well, of course; they are hoping these are cuts that readers won’t notice, or mind.)
Even within the newsroom, opinions are divided. Some think editorials are patronizing and paternalistic, out of touch with today’s more transparent and personalitydriven news agenda. Others think the daily editorial is the heart and soul of the paper.
What do you think? Are editorials important or irrelevant? Do you read them? Should papers endorse political candidates? O’Donnell wrote a blog about this after the fall civic election, and received a few interesting comments online. I’d love to hear from print readers, too.
Frankly, I still believe editorials can inform and challenge a community. I would hate to be the first in the Journal’s 110-year history to abandon a venerated newspaper tradition.
But clearly some readers don’t get what an editorial is anymore. And when you have to start defending the medium as well as the message, maybe it’s time for a second opinion.