Considering the value of editorials
Stuart Leavenworth, editorial page editor for The Sacramento Bee, recently grabbed the torch for his editorial-writing colleagues across the nation.
In a column, Leavenworth wrote:
“The editorial director of an influential California news organization, one that says it is dedicated to producing ‘stories that hold those in power accountable,’ believes there should be fewer voices dedicated to that cause.”
“Newspapers will start to taper off writing editorials,” predicted Mark Katches, editorial director of the Center for Investigative Reporting.
“They’ll find that they can be a leader in their communities by engaging audiences, moderating forums, holding events and curating roundtable discussion—while avoiding the pitfall of alienating a significant percentage of their audience by telling people what to think.”
Leavenworth responded: “There are so many things wrong with Katches’ conclusion I barely know where to start.”
He added: “It probably wasn’t intentional, but I find Katches’ characterization to be offensive. Newspapers have long published editorials for a simple reason—they want to be leaders in their communities. The very definition of leadership is taking a stand, defending it and constantly reassessing it.”
Leavenworth says no one on his newspaper’s editorial board “suffers under the delusion that our editorials ‘tell people what to think.’ We have a pretty high regard for our readers, who are fully capable of forming opinions on their own.”
I know that those on the Gazette Editorial Board think the same way.
In an follow-up email, Katches said he wasn’t advocating that newspapers drop editorials, just that it was a trend that was likely to continue. Yet he suggested that eliminating partisan editorials would be a smart move if newspapers want to keep readers.
“Sorry, but there is no evidence that strong opinions are hurting newspaper readership…,” Leavenworth wrote. “Well-researched, smartly argued editorials are part of what newspapers do to hold public officials accountable.”
The comments from Katches follow those from Kristina Ackermann, managing editor of Editor & Publisher, who urged newspapers to stop issuing election recommendations.
“Between accusations of biased coverage, waning power to influence readers, and the very real potential to drive away advertisers, newspapers are better off keeping their political endorsements to themselves,” she wrote last month.
Countered Leavenworth: “Would you want to read a newspaper that only sailed to the prevailing political winds and made decisions to avoid upsetting advertisers?
“Obviously, it’s a bad business model to go out of your way to alienate subscribers and businesses that might want to purchase advertising. But a newspaper that is void of anything that might upset anybody would be bland beyond belief. Indeed, if upsetting nobody was the goal, newspapers … would cease publication of investigative reporting.”
I'm a member of the Association of Opinion Journalists, and I'm confident the vast majority of my colleagues gave Leavenworth a round of applause.
I'm also glad to serve as Opinion page editor at a newspaper where owner/Publisher Sidney "Skip" Bliss is a staunch advocate of strong editorials.
Greg Peck can be reached at (608) 755-8278 or gpeck@gazettextra.com. Or follow him on Twitter or Facebook
Jan 24, 2013 at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
“Well-researched, smartly argued editorials are part of what newspapers do to hold public officials accountable.”
If only the Gazette followed that format. The Gazette Editorial Board certainly holds one political party more accountable than the other. I guess that's Skips idea of "strong editorials".
Jan 24, 2013 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let's not fool ourselves with fancy words... Orwell is rolling in his grave!
.
Editorials are created to persuade... Not to inform. Be honest and use words that describe the truth for once please.
.
It is also a well doccumented fact that students and writers who enter the field of journalisim do so in an attempt to CHANGE THE WORLD... They admit this readily.
.
Newspapers are dying... Of course newspaper editorials are going the same way...
.
The challenge will be to stay at the crest of the persuasion wave with creative media genesis.
Jan 24, 2013 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Editorials do not tell people what to think. They function to place a reasoned position to the readership. You may agree, or not! Either way you are free to submit your own view in the form of a letter to the editor for publication. Granted, you don't get the same amount of column space - but you do get the opportunity to put your position forward.
It would be really sad if the only opinion pieces published were those you agreed with. There may be authors that you simply ignore, but not to read solely because you disagree with their position on an issue prevents you from thinking through your own beliefs on the issue.
I personally hope the paper never tries to avoid contentious issues.
Jan 24, 2013 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
An editorial does not endeavor to "tell people what to think",
but it definitely has that effect on those who have been conditioned
to blindly adopt and follow others' direction.
Jan 24, 2013 at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think it’s pretty safe to say that as long as there are journalists, there will be editorials! I can’t imagine anyone working at a paper long enough to become an editor who doesn’t want to share his/her opinions with the rest of us.
Like anything else in the paper, editorials are pretty easy to ignore if you don’t like them. Different papers clearly have different tones and biases, and readers are free to seek out those they fancy. The Gozer’s editorials seem pretty balanced, and mostly concentrate on local issues that affect all of us rather than pushing a political agenda. I check out the Chicago Tribune editorials every morning; although they lean left they aren’t hard over and I enjoy getting some perspective from a different viewpoint. The New York Times editorials are so radically far left there’s no point wasting any time on them.
The same goes for the Op-Eds. I tend to agree with Krauthammer and Gerson, less so with Parker. I seldom agree with Robinson but his views are often well thought-out and presented, and certainly worth reading. (I read his column for years before I saw his picture, and used to think he was a cranky old white guy. Maybe I wasn’t reading closely enough!) Others are reliably tiresome, and simply ignored.
The real problem is the recent tendency for journalists to confuse reporting with editorializing, and putting a very strong slant on their stories. AP being the best example, though the “fact checking” articles are seldom unbiased. But I suppose that’s the subject for a different editorial . . .
Jan 23, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
“Sorry, but there is no evidence that strong opinions are hurting newspaper readership…,”
Then you're not looking hard enough. Mr. Peck, I corresponded with you when I canceled my subscription and let you know that the editorials in the paper were exactly the reason. Do you ever survey your departing subscribers to find out why they're leaving?
The editorials page has outlived its usefulness.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.