Editorials Run Gantlet Of Analysis, Debate And Consensus
How do newspaper editorial boards come up with all those opinionated pronouncements in their daily editorials?
Let me try to explain.
When I was a reporter, my credibility (and my newspaper’s) depended on my obligation to be objective, even-handed, accurate and complete. Bias was fatal to credibility.
When I became an opinion writer, the transformation was as difficult as it was profound.
To begin with, I had to adjust to the fact that people disagree, angrily at times, with the opinions I express - no matter what side I take or how carefully I phrase my arguments.
And, I had to add two new dimensions to my work: Analysis and debate.
During the most important phase - research and analytical thought - I need some of the same fair-minded thoroughness that is the essence of a good reporter’s work. After all, I’d be nothing more than an ideological reactionary if I declined to learn or change and simply followed my first emotional instinct about every issue I confront.
Yet I do bring to my analysis a political philosophy, a set of accumulated values and opinions that I had to bottle and shelve during my decade of work as a reporter.
I bring the topics I want to write about to the editorial board. This group of nine people chooses the issues most worthy of comment, debates them and decides what position the editorials should take.
The board’s most important member is the publisher, Stacey Cowles. As owner, he has an absolute right to intervene and decide what editorials will say. He rarely needs to do that. Most of the time our board operates by informal consensus. We’ve worked together for years and have a well-developed political philosophy that guides our editorials.
But, The Spokesman-Review deliberately has staffed its editorial board with individuals representing a range of experiences and opinions. This means that on the more polarized issues, we disagree. We vote, to decide the board’s view on these issues.
But we don’t gag members whose view winds up in the minority. Every Friday our pro and con editorials present both sides of volatile issues, with one speaking for the board’s majority and one speaking in dissent. In a way, the whole package also speaks for the board.
These pro-con packages are the most controversial feature in our opinion pages, by far. And we think that’s good.
Two weeks ago, we debated what became one of the more controversial pro-cons we have produced. The issue was whether a woman’s behavioral choices can increase the risk that she’ll suffer a date rape. This arose from the sad tale of a Coeur d’Alene woman who complained of date rape after performing a drunken striptease at a party and agreeing to go with two fellow revelers to their dormitory room.
After debating this question heatedly for several days, two board members squared off for a pro-con. Six of our board’s members were available to vote on the topic. After reading both editorials, we voted 4-2 to side with the be-careful-about-your-choices view, as written by D.F. Oliveria. Oliveria revised his editorial in response to suggestions from his colleagues on the majority, which included one of our board’s two women members.
As with all of the controversies over the contents of our Opinion pages, I view the battle as healthy. And I flatly reject the mindset that some opinions should not be aired because someone disagrees. As individuals, as an editorial board and as a society, we all need to be learning and exploring as we go. It’s not easy. And it’s important not to slaughter one another along the way. In my view, we are like travelers walking through a forest, searching for the light. If one of us runs into a tree, we help him up, dust him off and keep going.
, DataTimes