Keenan on the role of columnists
Weighing in on a wide range of news requires research, as well as a flair for rhetoric
This story is part of the Star’s trust initiative, where, every week, we take readers behind the scenes of our journalism. This week, we focus on how city columnist Edward Keenan comes up with ideas and how he views his role.
For the past three years, Edward Keenan has been helping Toronto Star readers make sense of what’s happening in their city — be it news coming out of city hall, the police or local neighbourhoods. Three to four times a week, Keenan opines on a range of subjects, a skill he honed over more than a decade as a senior editor and columnist at the Grid, and before that, Eye Weekly. We sat down with Keenan to learn his thoughts on the role of a columnist in a media climatedisrupted by concerns over an influx of “fake news.” When you choose a topic to write about, do you normally already have an opinion, or do you let your research guide you?
I hope that in all cases, I let my research and the evidence I have available shape my thoughts. In practice, the topic selection happens after much of the research a lot of the time. There are a bunch of things I’m constantly reading about in city reports, news items and research papers, and out of that ongoing research an idea for a column presents itself. Sometimes, however, I choose a topic that’s in the news or that I stumble on because it’s interesting, and then I need to do a bunch of research and reporting on it before I know what I think or what I plan to say. In some of my favourite columns, there isn’t a huge opinion element to it at all, it’s just telling a story — like in the case of the garbage picker in the Junction who saved a bunch of people in a fire, or the teacher whose tomato garden was at the centre of a whole set of community interactions. How do you keep on top of city developments you write about?
I read the newspaper, obviously, and other media outlets, and I pay attention to a bunch of interested and involved people on social media. I also watch city council meetings and committee meetings, and regularly speak with councillors, city staff members and activists who work on issues at the city. I look at council agendas and read through the attached reports, and I try to read or solicit the analysis of experts who are also looking at these files. I’ve been following municipal affairs in Toronto for about 15 years, so a lot of the time I’m already familiar with a lot of the background. Why do you think it’s important for people to read opinion?
Well, I think it can be entertaining, first of all, if the writing is good. And I think beyond opinions themselves, what a columnist like me offers — I hope — is context, analysis, a way to fit the flood of news items into the big picture of the city to see why something is important, or what it means. A lot of our culture, society, politics and law is based on arguments about ideas, or even just expressions of ideas and opinions. And I think there’s a lot of value in reading someone else’s opinions and ideas, especially when they think about the subject a lot. I know I enjoy and appreciate reading the thoughtful opinions of others, even those I disagree with. In seeing why I disagree with someone, I can get a better handle on why I think or feel the way I do. That’s incredibly valuable. How crucial is it for you to do your own interviews and reporting, even if you are writing about a topic that has been in the news?
It depends on the subject, and it depends on what I plan to say about it. I very often do my own reporting on a subject I’ve read about in order to add to the story, or to clarify my own certainty about it. But often I also lean heavily on the reporting of others, especially Star reporters whose work I know and trust. In a lot of cases, I’ve worked alongside beat reporters who have much better sources and often better skills than I do to dig things up on a particular subject. But what I have as a columnist that a reporter doesn’t is the latitude to draw conclusions from their research, such as how a certain thing means someone should be fired, or a law should be changed, or to express an emotion about it. In those cases, I try to make it clear what my own sources of information are, so people will recognize my commentary and also the reporting of others that shaped that commentary. In an era where there is a blurring of opinion and straight news coverage in some publications, do you think the media isdoing a good job of making the distinction?
I think the distinction is very clear to us who work in the media: columnists and op-ed contributors write opinions and analysis, reporters report the story, and editorialists convey an institutional opinion. But I do think that the public often has a less firm grasp on the distinctions. And in particular, I think the industry might need better ways to flag the differences in digital environments. In the printed paper, when my column might run beside a straight news story about the same subject, and will have my photo at the top of it in a distinct style of layout, I think it’s actually pretty obvious to most readers. But online, the column photo isn’t there, and people may have surfed in from a social media link and come to it with no context other than the headline. Still, I think my own voice, my approach to writing, my presentation of my arguments and opinions should make it clear to most readers that I am not just-thefacts. I hope my writing itself makes that context clear to people, and think that most of the time it does. Now, there are plenty of people I hear from who think I’m an idiot who should not have that job, but that’s different from those who don’t understand what the job is. Email your questions to trust@thestar.ca.