When a newspaper refuses to editorialize

[User 4332]

North Carolina is in the midst of voting on a sweeping marriage amendment to its state constitution. This is the most divisive and hotly discussed political issue in this state that I can remember in all the years I've lived here. I've been told you have to go back to Jesse Helms' close re-election bids against Harvey Gantt in the 1990s to find as polarizing of an election issue in this state.

Every major newspaper in the state has taken an editorial position on how the public should vote, save one: the News & Record in Greensboro. Although a shell of its former self, it is still the third largest newspaper in the state. The stated reason for not taking a position is that the editorial board cannot come to consensus on the issue. The editorial board of the paper has dwindled to three people: the publisher, and two editorial department staffers. The two editorial staffers have already written columns stating why they are against the amendment. Leaving one person on the opposite side of the argument -- the publisher. So the paper is taking no position.

It's raised an interesting debate. What is the role of a newspaper editorial if a newspaper is going to sit out the most important debate of its day? If a newspaper is going to editorialize on the day-to-day mundane, does it not have a responsibility to weigh in on the more serious issues?

Here's Romenesko's take on it:

http://jimromenesko.com/2012/05/03/why-greensboro-news-and-record-is-silent-on-amendment-one/

And the N&R's former editor:

http://johnlrobinson.com/2012/05/to-editorialize-or-not/

 

[Michael_ Gee]

If I published a newspaper, God forbid, it would have no editorial page. Opinion pieces would be opinions of the individual writer, not the paper as an institution, and there would be considerably fewer of those, too. But of course, most publishers regard the opportunity to shoot their mouths off without having their name attached as one of the big perks of newspaper ownership.

 

[Drip]

If I published a newspaper, God forbid, it would have no editorial page. Opinion pieces would be opinions of the individual writer, not the paper as an institution, and there would be considerably fewer of those, too. But of course, most publishers regard the opportunity to shoot their mouths off without having their name attached as one of the big perks of newspaper ownership.

Opinions are like noses. Everyone has one.

 

[dixiehack]

They don't call him the best color man in the business for nothing folks.

 

[buckweaver]

I do know there were at least a few papers in California that chose not to weigh in on Prop. 8 in 2008.

 

[I Should Coco]

Every major newspaper in the state has taken an editorial position on how the public should vote, save one: the News & Record in Greensboro. Although a shell of its former self, it is still the third largest newspaper in the state. The stated reason for not taking a position is that the editorial board cannot come to consensus on the issue. The editorial board of the paper has dwindled to three people: the publisher, and two editorial department staffers. The two editorial staffers have already written columns stating why they are against the amendment. Leaving one person on the opposite side of the argument -- the publisher. So the paper is taking no position.

Surprising the publisher didn't just have the "editorial board" write up the reasons why he favors the amendment. That's usually what happens.

I hate "staff" editorials ... they should all be signed by whomever feels that way, whether it's the publisher, editor, etc.

I remember being at a weekly chain in the Chicago burbs, just out of college. A controversial bond proposal for a new high school was on the ballot. The publisher came to a staff meeting and asked us all to give our opinion, and we were all against it. Told him most of the residents we knew were against it.

Publisher was golfing/drinking buddies with the local school superintendent. "We" endorsed the bond issue in a "staff editorial," and it was trounced at the polls.

 

[txsportsscribe]

They don't call him the best color man in the business for nothing folks.

thank you

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

If I owned a paper, it would run no opinion writing at all. Because it's in abundant supply everywhere else.

But if a paper is going to run opinion every day, it's gutless to duck a major issue.

 

[HanSenSE]

Almost calls for dueling editorial page columns and letting readers decide for themselves.

 

[Matt Stephens]

Seems like a good way to not tick either side off and save some advertising relationships.

 

[User 4332]

Seems like a good way to not tick either side off and save some advertising relationships.

You, my good son, have the makings of a publisher.

 

[RickStain]

Seems like a good way to not tick either side off and save some advertising relationships.

You, my good son, have the makings of a publisher.

You know, this board has a pretty big tolerance for personal attacks, but there's got to be a line of decency. Nobody should ever have that said about them.

 

[Matt Stephens]

Hahahaha touche.

 

[Mark2010]

If I published a newspaper, God forbid, it would have no editorial page. Opinion pieces would be opinions of the individual writer, not the paper as an institution, and there would be considerably fewer of those, too. But of course, most publishers regard the opportunity to shoot their mouths off without having their name attached as one of the big perks of newspaper ownership.

Opinions are like noses. Everyone has one.

Completely agree. Cover the damn news and let readers make up their own minds. Whatever side you pick is going to alienate the others. And, God forbid, don't tick off any potential advertisers.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

Seems like a good way to not tick either side off and save some advertising relationships.

You, my good son, have the makings of a publisher.

Almost did a spit take on that one ...

And while this issue has been a hot-button topic, dunno if it was quite the lightning rod that Jesse Helms was.

 

[dixiehack]

You needed that marriage. And you were the most qualified. But he had to marry a guy instead because of a homosexual quota.

[pair of hands crumples up engagement announcement]

 

[Ace]

I can't really believe this is that divisive of an issue. When bans of gay marriage have been voted on in Southern states in recent years, they are supported by 80-90 percent of the voters.

 

[User 4332]

I can't really believe this is that divisive of an issue. When bans of gay marriage have been voted on in Southern states in recent years, they are supported by 80-90 percent of the voters.

You don't have to believe it, but it is. North Carolina has long been the most progressive of the Southern states. There's a major generational shift in attitudes toward gay marriage and this vote is coming in North Carolina years after the other Southern states voted on it.

Polling indicates it will pass with a majority somewhere in the 51-54% range. Even its primary sponsor admits that it will likely be repealed in 10-20 years because of changing attitudes. The issue also significantly splits the state's large rural regions and growing urban areas.

 

[User 4332]

Seems like a good way to not tick either side off and save some advertising relationships.

You, my good son, have the makings of a publisher.

You know, this board has a pretty big tolerance for personal attacks, but there's got to be a line of decency. Nobody should ever have that said about them.

You are right. I crossed the line and apologize, Mr. Stephens, for my thoughtless insult.

 

[Ace]

I can't really believe this is that divisive of an issue. When bans of gay marriage have been voted on in Southern states in recent years, they are supported by 80-90 percent of the voters.

You don't have to believe it, but it is. North Carolina has long been the most progressive of the Southern states. There's a major generational shift in attitudes toward gay marriage and this vote is coming in North Carolina years after the other Southern states voted on it.

Polling indicates it will pass with a majority somewhere in the 51-54% range. Even its primary sponsor admits that it will likely be repealed in 10-20 years because of changing attitudes. The issue also significantly splits the state's large rural regions and growing urban areas.

Well, that's some progress, I guess.

Conservatives are all for smaller government except when government is needed to get "different" folks to toe the line.