I'm beginning to get a handle on my two new jobs, so I will take a few minutes to post now and again.
Sorry I didn't make the Blogger Bash. I had two reasons that seemed good at the time:
1. I haven't actually been blogging, and there's the moral from a Hemingway anecdote: Don't talk about why you're not writing. Just write.
2. I would have had to go back to work afterward. I hate going back to work after having a couple of beers, even more than I hate going back to work after not having a couple of beers.
I do want to weigh in on Steve Prosinski's comments from City Lights about Gazette editorial endorsements. He was responding to criticism by Eric Coobs that Gazette endorsements are anonymous and predetermined. I have no reason to doubt Steve's account of how the process worked in the race Eric was in. No argument there. I do know that on occasions in the past Gazette endorsements have made independently of, and probably prior to, the editorial board's interviews with candidates. I know because I was on the editorial board at the time, and I am not proud of it. But that was a different era.
The larger point is about the anonymity of endorsements. Steve says they aren't anonymous; they are made by an editorial board whose members are named on the editorial page from time to time. It's an argument I have made myself, and it's accurate as far as it goes.
But Eric's complaint is such a common one that I wonder if editors aren't missing something here. When George Bush gives his State of the Union speech tonight, no one will complain that he failed to name the speechwriters who actually composed the words. Everybody understands that the speech is a group effort and that the president is ultimately responsible for what comes out of his mouth.
Historically, newspaper endorsements have operated on the same principle. The "official" editorial, usually in the upper left-hand corner on the opinion page, was designed as the publisher's space. No matter who actually writes the editorial, it represents the views of the publisher, and the publisher is responsible for those views. Even on newspapers that have editorial boards, the publisher normally operates on the "plus one" rule: Every member of the editorial board has one equal vote. The publisher has votes equalling that total, plus one. Even publishers who voluntarily surrender control of the board, are still responsible for its decisions.
It actually isn't a bad system. Under the best circumstances, it allows editors and reporters to do their work more or less free from the publisher's influence. And the publisher can still use the space on the opinion page to tell buddies at the Chamber of Commerce that she (or he) is on their side. At a seminar I once attended on editorial writing, the presenter was asked if it bothered him when the publisher killed one of his editorials. Not at all, he said, so long as the publisher writes another one of the same length.
To modern editors, though, that all sounds a bit autocratic. They want the paper to come off as the reader's pal, a friendly, democratic kind of place where decisions are reached by reason and consensus. And publishers, as the good corporate drones they have become, aren't fond of sticking their necks out. So they set up elaborate editorial boards and never explain how they really work. Readers smell something fishy and react the way Eric did.
The solution? One, of course, is to get rid of "official" editorials. As many critics have complained, newspapers can't have opinions; only people can.
On the other hand, I still think there is something valuable going on when a newspaper takes a public stand on issues of importance, such as on who is going to get elected. If nothing else, endorsements let readers know where biases lie. But papers could be more open about what those official opinions really mean.
Forgive me, Lord, for I have blogged.