PressEthic

Opinion writing seems like a great gig.

No chasing cops around for a comment about a crime spree, no worries about getting all sides of the story, just thinking out loud on the page. It's easy to assume that no reporting would be involved.

Then lessons like this one show how subtly editorials can preach at readers with no strong rationale. All it takes are two little words, easier to write than an actual persuasive argument, to make an editorial a hollow stump speech.

Just like politicians can use phrases like, "Social Security must be changed," to make a crowd cheer (and forget to ask how or why), editorial writers can forego substance for empty directives. The Bush administration should pay attention to this. Congress must consider that.

Says who?

The holier than thou rhetoric is hard to detect, especially since most of us read what we agree with anyway. But influence doesn't come from preaching to the choir. In a well-written, thoughtful opinion piece, there's no place for a mere "should" or "must." With the pros come the cons, acknowledged then discredited. Knowing the counterattack is the best offense.

A conservative would sooner use a New York Times editorial page to start a fire than pay attention to it; the same is true for liberals and the Wall Street Journal. And however persuasive, those pieces may not ever convince them. It doesn't matter.

Editorials are at their most powerful when those people stop, if only for a second, to think.