FeedTime to stop the unsigned editorial
September 27, 2006 in Overset, Watchdog Tags: editorial pages, editorial writers, editorialists, Jeff Jarvis, journalism
Jeff Javis puts into words what I have been saying for a long time. It’s time newspapers abandon the unsigned editorial:
The irony is that the editorialists have long been guilty of the sins most often attributed to bloggers: They rarely report and mostly just leach off the work of other journalists. And they work anonymously. Worse, they attempt to speak as the voices of institutions, issuing opinions as if from the mountaintop. But today, we do not trust institutions. We are impatient with lectures. We demand to speak eye-to-eye as humans. We require conversation. The form of the editorial is as outmoded as its medium. News organizations should no longer define themselves by the ink on their paper. And publishers may no longer assume the prerogative of telling us what to think just because they buy that ink by the barrel. Now we all have our barrels of bits.
And as newspapers face economic torture, it is time to ask whether they can afford editorialists when spare resources should go toward supporting their true value: local reporting.
I’ve been asked why I oppose unsigned editorials and don’t oppose anonymous blogs and anonymous commenters. The anonymous blogger and commenter speak only for themselves. They don’t purport to be the voice of an institution. An anonymous editorial hides abuses of the systems newspapers SHOULD have in place to prevent special pleading and biases. Bloggers and commenters sometimes remain anonymous to protect their jobs, which is not an issue with editorial writers. Some people could not blog or comment on blogs if they were made to reveal their identities, again, not an issue on editorial pages.
And finally, anonymous bloggers may not reveal their birth names, but they have distinct identities. Polly Peoria is Polly Peoria. But who is the person who wrote the editorial in today’s Journal Star? Is if the editorial board members known to be biased against that particular subject? The newspaper things we don’t have the right to know.
It’s an arrogance that consumers of the New Media will not tolerate.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Signed editorials would be helpful, especially when one’s intent is assumed as the editorial board neglects to ask the serf where her opinion is……….
September 27th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
I agree editorials should be signed, because it give the argument more credibility, just as bloggers and commenters have more credibility if they post under their real identities.
But I’m still puzzled over the outrage at the JS for not signing their editorials. The board is only three people, and they often collaborate on the final product. While I agree that they should be signed, at least we know it is some combination of three people. That’s a much narrower set of possibilities than the anonymous bloggers and comenters enjoy.
Still, its always better to stand behind your words with your name, in my opinion. That goes for newpaper editorials, blogs, or standing on the street corner speaking your mind.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Hm,
Think I ranted about this several weeks ago……
September 27th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
the city council on 9/26/2006 awarded the janitorial contract for city building to the contractor thats had it for years back to him for sixty thousand more a year than any other contractor bid something iss definatly wrong with this picture someone need to look into this matter i dont know what else to do but post this for everyone to see
September 27th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Sue: I sat through two meetings in which this was discussed. I haven’t blogged about it yet because I’ve been under the weather and have been just too tired.
The contract was awarded to the contractor that ended up ranked higher than all others according to a list of criteria. All bidders knew what the criteria was. Criteria that was to be evaluated included price, whether or not they bidders complied with EOO rules, etc.
The contractor selected was the one that scored the BEST under these previously determined criteria. City staffers looked at these results and decided to award NONE of the bids to this contractor, and instead split the contracts among a two bidders who submitted lower bids.
Remember, the price alone is not the only criteria the city said it would use to evaluate the bids.
While I think price should have played a bigger role in the process, I also think the city should play by its own rules. And not change the criteria for awarding bids after the bids come in.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Unsigned editorials are not really unsigned. They are the work of the editorial board, whose names are listed on the opinion page right where anyone but a lazy blogger can see. At the Daily Times, anyway, editorials are a collaborative effort, with each member of the editorial board having input. I find it amusing that Mr. Dennis, who could never keep a job at a legitimate news organization to save his fat ass (just ask somebody at the Peoria Times-Observer), would be such an expert on newsroom culture.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Out of all the newspaper jobs I’ve had, there’s been at least one or two that I walked away from rather than the other way around. But thanks for being so interested in my career, Rick.
Anyway, I know enough about the “collaborative effort” of writing newspaper editorials to know that no matter what the editorial board says, sometimes the words that appear don’t express the opinions of ANYONE on the editorial board. Perhaps the Pekin Daily Times is a rare exception. If so, kudos to you.
What the public increasingly objects to is the lack of transparancy the main stream media demonstrates. The shell game newspapers play with having unsigned editorials written (maybe) by one of a handful of people whose names are on the masthead just isn’t working anymore. Here in Peoria, we know there are members of that editorial board with personal grudges to settle.
And it’s a crock to try to present the majority opinion of a handful of select writers as the opinion of an entire organization.
You might also want to check out some of my recent posts on civility, as well.
Thanks for your input!
January 11th, 2007 at 8:40 am
I stand by what I said. Anyone, employees, Jim Mangan, Don White, citizens — with the exception of cowardly anonymous bloggers — are welcome to respond. I print every letter, especially those that begin with “I know you won’t print this, but …” I would even print a letter from YOU, since you obviously have the guts to put your name on your opinions. That’s bravery. That’s taking responsibility. As for civility, i do apologize for taking a personal cheap shot at you. That was wrong. Mea culpa. Newspapers that ignore the “new media” will likely fail. Those that embrace it will survive and thrive. We here at the Times don’t allow our personal grudges take control of our editorial. That’s what columns are for, here at least. I think our lively letters to the editor section, including guest commentaries we call “special to the Times” are proof of that. In fact, we have started a blogging feature on our web site, which we hope to expand in the future to include reporters and editors, with their names attached.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Rick: Thanks for writing a second time. Apology accepted. ‘Nuff said.
Anyway, on the subject of unsigned edits in newspapers: We’ll have to agree to disagree on that subject. I just do not see any upside to “group-written” opinion that is somehow supposed to represent the opinion of the entire organization. It’s an attempt to make the thoughts of a few people seem more thoughtful and weighty then they really deserve to be. How can the Journal Star or the Pekin Daily Times say THIS particular set of words represent the opinion of the organization? Did they take a poll of employees? Stockholders? Remember what it was like as a reporter when the edit page rattled off some nonsense that seemed to be based on someone’s reporting othe than your own? I guarantee your own reporters at least occasionally roll their eyes at what appears on your edit page.
Why not stop it and try something a bit more transparent?