What would the world be like without the op-ed pages that influence America? Would it be a barren place bereft of political endorsements and criticisms of public policy? In an opinion column -- of all places -- for The Nation, Eric Alterman argues that the press and public would benefit from such a change.
Alterman asserts opinions bleed from op-ed page in to the newsroom, effecting coverage and public perception.
While reporters and editors would like to believe that their readers are fully aware of the split between the news and editorial desks, in fact the distinction matters only to the minuscule minority who read the paper the way journalism professors would wish. Most news consumers do not know or care enough to make such distinctions. The Times is recognized as a 'liberal newspaper' because it has a generally liberal editorial page. (For the first time in modern memory, the Times endorsed virtually all Democrats this year.) The Wall Street Journal is seen as the opposite. As a result, Journal reporters are apparently less terrified than their Times colleagues of appearing to confirm suspicions of 'liberal bias' in their stories, so they feel slightly freer to tell the truth.
Alterman’s strongest argument is in critiquing the readers, as they cast a broad net of bias over an entire publication merely for the opinions of the op-ed board -- which is their job. Surely the onus falls on the public, as readers must discern between fact and opinion.
In a place as polarized as modern America, do editorials work? With media fracturing and the public shopping for news that suites their beliefs, Alterman asks if editorials still have the punch and weight that they once had.
Citing two examples, he writes, "This year strong endorsements by the Times of Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman and Democrat Diane Farrell over moderate Republican Chris Shays in Connecticut failed to sway exactly the kind of voters one would expect to swear by the Times. And it's hard to imagine a Washington Post editorial swaying many votes in the District of Columbia, where Democrats always win, no matter what."
These are a good examples, but flawed in thought. Editorials -- while written to persuade public opinion -- are built on collective beliefs, beliefs that cannot be compromised for them to be effective, regardless if they fall short of influence, and these voices are essential.
Anne Noyes @ November 11, 2006 - 12:14pm
Good points, Mike. I also was intrigued by Alterman's call for abolishing the editorial page.
At best, Alterman argues, editorials are ineffective and have ceased to hold much sway for readers who have access to a lively range of blogosphere editorialists. At worst, the editorial page generates a perception of bias that less savvy readers often associate with the entire paper. The logic goes something like this: if The New York Times editorial page lists to the political left, then the Times must be a liberal paper.
So far, I tend to agree with Alterman. But then he makes a huge leap. To preemptively counter the perception of bias cultivated by the editorial page in the minds of a paper's readers, Alterman argues, a paper's reporters may actually feel compelled to adjust their reporting to avoid mirroring the biases of the editorial page.
He writes: "[I]n the so-called objective press, editorials taint the reporting in the minds of many readers. And while I can't prove this, I think this leads reporters and editors to bend over backward to prove they don't share the biases of their editorial boards...."
First of all, how can Alterman purport to know and understand the many shifting motivations that underlie the complexities of news reporting? Reporters must master their own personal biases while on the job, navigate protean mazes of sources (and their motivations!), balance narratives with conflicting narratives -- all while honoring the need to craft clear and compelling content for publication. These are the dueling objectives that challenge reporters' consciences and intellects -- not grappling with the false taint of bias that is perhaps harbored by readers who remain unaware of papers' sacrosanct separation of news and editorial.
And, really, with so many vocal accusers continually invoking the specter of media bias, would a reporter have time to worry about maintaining the faith and trust of the largely silent and perhaps less-discerning mass of readers?
Because the US media has long been subjected to accusations of bias, the knee-jerk reporting defense mechanism that Alterman posits -- counter-slanting news coverage to compensate for editorial page biases -- initially rings true. One imagines that today's reporters are especially eager to establish themselves as objective sources of news.
Eager -- yes, but not desperate.
»