Should newspapers drop their editorial pages?

[gr8oldies]

I was a newspaper reader from a young age, including the editorial page and op-eds. (This was the era where I could read Art Buchwald's humor column). Should they drop the editorial page? I wouldn't think so, but in our consolidated, cost-cutting ways the papers seem not to want to rock the boat with the GQP one-party government

 

[davideduardo]

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.

My point is that management, whether directly by the owner, or through designated executives, can determine what each employee can publish or not.

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.

That is irrelevant to the fact that within a company, the owner(s) set the policy and not following it will result in dismissal or sanctions.

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.

The paper can editorialize. But editorials can not be published randomly by employees without management / ownership approval or global consent.

The First Amendment simply says that the government can not stop the paper from editorializing. The paper itself establishes who can cause editorials to be published and what they may cover or say. The government can not censure media editorials, but each medium's owners can and do.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is that management, whether directly by the owner, or through designated executives, can determine what each employee can publish or not.

The first five letters of "editorial" is editor. If an owner hires someone to be an editor of a newspaper, it's very likely that said editor is expected to write editorials. It's not required, but it's likely part of his job description. I don't believe I have to explain this.

As I said if the owner doesn't want his editor to write editorials, he can tell him not to. But once that editorial has been approved and written and published, it's existence is covered by the first amendment. Understand? That's ALL I'm saying.

That is irrelevant to the fact that within a company, the owner(s) set the policy and not following it will result in dismissal or sanctions.

I've never disputed that. It's not relevant to this discussion.

The paper can editorialize. But editorials can not be published randomly by employees without management / ownership approval or global consent.

No one anywhere at any time in this thread has said that they should. Once again, totally irrelevant.

 

[davideduardo]

The first five letters of "editorial" is editor. If an owner hires someone to be an editor of a newspaper, it's very likely that said editor is expected to write editorials. It's not required, but it's likely part of his job description. I don't believe I have to explain this.

No, the function of an "editor" is to "edit" as well as to assign, critique and officiate. The Editor sets content policy and administers it, while the publisher produces the print or online product, sells advertising and manages the business.

In some cases, including some major papers in the past, the Editor and Publisher were the same person.

In the larger papers I know, the editor seldom writes editorials but they may be on the editorial board and participate in selecting each day's editorial position and subject.

As I said if the owner doesn't want his editor to write editorials, he can tell him not to. But once that editorial has been approved and written and published, it's existence is covered by the first amendment. Understand? That's ALL I'm saying.

But there has never been government regulation of media content other than things like obscenity.

Each newspaper can, internally, and with the consent or delegated authority of the owner, establish who writes editorials and what subjects they may cover. As I said, in the past the way each paper does this is purely discretionary.

 

[TheBigA]

No, the function of an "editor" is to "edit" as well as to assign, critique and officiate.

I never said writing editorials is his only function.

But there has never been government regulation of media content other than things like obscenity.

Never said there was.

 

[boombox4]

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

Not so sure there are that many bots doing the extreme comments and 'vile' stuff. First off, every time on social media I've seen someone accused of being a 'bot', when you actually look at their social media page they clearly aren't a fake persona. Secondly, I've seen too many instances of actual people dishing out the partisan vitriol to think it's just done by bots.

There may be some bots that are programmed to comment underneath news articles, but the vast majority of vitriolic comments are real people who are either partisan in their views or they are obediently parroting whatever talking points they get from their favorite politician or political party apparatus.

 

[boombox4]

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.

This may be due to the prevalence of opinionated, partisan "news" websites, which pack their news stories with opinion, or otherwise present them in a biased fashion. Breitbart and Daily Kos are obvious examples from either side of the political spectrum.

Some opinion pieces on news websites are also presented to appear like bonafide news pieces, and because news webpages can't physically cordon off their opinion page as completely as a paper newspaper could, it's easier for readers to be confused. If the article doesn't have the word "Opinion" or "Editorial" emblazoned across the top in large, bold fonts, it's easy to overlook it amongst all the other distracting things on most news sites (automatic videos with commercials, numerous pop-ups, etc.).

And as we found with the expose on FB last year, websites' algorithms will push the extremist, divisive and attention-getting articles at the reader, regardless of actual importance or newsworthiness.

News websites, although they are a great concept in theory, have cheapened journalism to the tabloid level, turning news into thinly veiled clickbait.

Finally, with modern news, the opinion IS the brand.