Should newspapers drop their editorial pages?

[vchimpanzee]

In one of the newspapers I read today--I can't link because this is subscriber-only content and I get it using my library card number--numerous readers have complained about the loss of editorial pages, and the person who takes such complaints if they are worth writing about in the paper said this:

"[A] recent survey showed readers find the editorial pages and syndicated columnists spark discontent and divisiveness, and that's one reason for eliminating them on a daily basis."

 

[KeithE4]

In the case of the Arizona Repugnant/AZCentral, their columnists and editorials are the only things worth reading. Agree or disagree, at least they're well done. It's all the other garbage in that fishwrap that finally caused me to drop my subscription.

 

[Phil Harmonic]

Great editorial stuff is hard to top... I think Eric Sevareid was the master at that...

 

[ScottBurns]

Bots filling up the comment section of newspaper and TV posts on social media...that is where the vile stuff really is.

 

[davideduardo]

Despite having family members in a major newspaper in a major market, I've never read the editorial page anywhere I lived. I form my own opinions on the news, and if I want to hear the opinions of others I prefer the dialogue style of MSNBC and Fox and even, occasionally, The View.

Dialogue allows varied perspectives to be presented, while newspaper editorials always leave me with the feeling that important facts have been ignored or dismissed.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Since I can't link to the article, I will add it was a corporate decision, and Sundays still have editorial pages and columnists.

 

[TheBigA]

Dialogue allows varied perspectives to be presented, while newspaper editorials always leave me with the feeling that important facts have been ignored or dismissed.

That's the point. That's the difference between an editorial and a news article. The news article provides varied perspectives and quotes from authoritative sources. An editorial is the view from the editor.

 

[davideduardo]

That's the point. That's the difference between an editorial and a news article. The news article provides varied perspectives and quotes from authoritative sources. An editorial is the view from the editor.

But an opinion-based discussion allows a variety of opinions within the borders of the established context. I've done news/talk and all news in a half dozen countries and never did "solo" editorials but always did either panel or listener participation opinion segments or capsules.

Part of that is my belief in the quote, "give light and the people will find their own way". It is my feeling that discussing a subject and covering broader viewpoints allows listeners to both better understand the issues while leaving the decision to them.

 

[TheBigA]

But an opinion-based discussion allows a variety of opinions within the borders of the established context.

Exactly, which is why most major newspapers offer their editorial pages for differing views. Both WaPo and NYT do that every day. But they also have the right to express their own opinion. They don't lose their first amendment right because they become an editor.

 

[Phil Harmonic]

Guest editorials, also cool...

 

[davideduardo]

Exactly, which is why most major newspapers offer their editorial pages for differing views. Both WaPo and NYT do that every day. But they also have the right to express their own opinion. They don't lose their first amendment right because they become an editor.

The Post (I still subscribe) limits the guest opinion pieces and they almost all fit within a broader field of their basic staff editorial opinion base.

There is no First Amendment right at a privately owned newspaper.

 

[TheBigA]

There is no First Amendment right at a privately owned newspaper.

The editor has the right to express his opinion. That right has been supported by the Supreme Court.

 

[davideduardo]

The editor has the right to express his opinion. That right has been supported by the Supreme Court.

The editor does not have that right unless the owner grants it. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

 

[TheBigA]

The editor does not have that right unless the owner grants it. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Regardless, his first amendment rights are supported by the Supreme Court. As are those of the owner, if he wants to write an opinion. Katherine Graham wrote several well known editorials in her paper.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Yes, I think newspapers should drop their opinion sections completely.

People don't seem to be able to decouple the different standards for what gets published as news and what gets published as opinion, so opinion should go away in order to protect the brand.

It may be a couple decades too late for that, though.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Regardless, his first amendment rights are supported by the Supreme Court. As are those of the owner, if he wants to write an opinion. Katherine Graham wrote several well known editorials in her paper.

OK, out of curiosity: what year was this challenged? Newspaper editorials literally predate the American Revolution, with publishers like Samuel and John Adams taking stands via their newspapers in the 1760s, so surely this was settled a very long time ago.

 

[boombox4]

I can't see where newspaper (or news site) opinion pages or opinion columns are any more divisive than the nature of social media itself. Opinion is important. It always has been.

 

[davideduardo]

Regardless, his first amendment rights are supported by the Supreme Court. As are those of the owner, if he wants to write an opinion. Katherine Graham wrote several well known editorials in her paper.

That is because it is her paper and she can set policy. She could also give orders about who could editorialize and about what and with which opinion because here employees had (and have) no right to set policies that are not delegated by the owners. The First Amendment does not apply to employees of a business when related to their job.

 

[davideduardo]

The editor has the right to express his opinion. That right has been supported by the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment guarantees that the government can not dictate or control what a newspaper can publish that is not otherwise covered by law.*

So the government could not tell Catherine Graham what to run in her paper. But she could and did tell her employees exactly what they could cover and how.

* The exceptions to the First Amendment have to do with things like pornography and the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a movie theater when there is no fire. Other regulations apply to licensed media and cover things like tobacco advertising.

 

[TheBigA]

That is because it is her paper and she can set policy. She could also give orders about who could editorialize and about what and with which opinion because here employees had (and have) no right to set policies

Although operationally (if you read her book and the books of her editors) she didn't run her paper that way. She was a tough leader, and was very firm with employees. But she also trusted her editors to do their jobs. That was especially true during Watergate.

The First Amendment guarantees that the government can not dictate or control what a newspaper can publish that is not otherwise covered by law.*

In the last few years, Donald Trump sued several newspaper editorial writers for various things, and every one of those personal lawsuits (made by him, not the office of the president) were all thrown out of every court they were filed in.

We've discussed all of those lawsuits here on this very board. The courts have verified the rights of newspapers to editorialize and those editorials are covered by the first amendment rights of those writers against lawsuits. That's what I'm talking about here. Not whether or not an employee has those rights.