Editorial Shouting Match

You don’t have to be an editorial page editor to have noticed it, but the job does provide a perfect perch from which to observe this national phenomenon of entrenched views and closed minds.

And in that phenomenon is some cause to worry about editorial pages as we know them.

From this unique vantage point, it appears at times that too many of our readers really don’t want to be presented with views contrary to their own. Moreover, many possess keen desires to ascribe motives and characteristics to those who offer these contrary views. They include those writing editorials, the institutional views of the newspapers, and those writing columns containing only their opinions.

Consider just a recent smattering of e-mail responses to a few editorials written at my newspaper.

“You guys are just plain sick!” (About an editorial criticizing Congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case).

“You are an accomplice to a murder by siding with Michael Schiavo.” (Same editorial).

“Your liberal rag must not be selling too well.” (In response to no particular editorial but seemingly a broad-brush indictment of all our editorials. Coincidentally, this came from a “reader” who reached this judgment despite admitting canceling his subscription much earlier, and consequently not reading us often at all).

“With such a load of liberal crap like that being published, it’s no wonder that there’s no byline under the story.” (About an editorial urging Congress to not grant immunity from lawsuits to the gun industry.)

So we are sick, murderous liberals who publish crap. And liberal, we’ve noticed, is firmly ensconced in any respectable dictionary of epithets these days.

Never mind that, in the last election, my paper endorsed Republicans as well as Democrats. And that a studied reading of our editorial views would reveal that they are not as predictable as these writers believe.

But also consider this recent response to a column by a well-known conservative: “Can’t you find a genuine conservative whose mind hasn’t suffered rigor mortis?” This writer was not, from my reading, a conservative bemoaning the state of conservatism but a non-conservative, taking potshots. Our conservative columnists, syndicated and local, have, in fact, been called everything from Neanderthals to Nazis in my short time here. And “hypocrite” seems to be a tag that attaches to anyone writing opinion, whatever the political persuasion.

But, of course, you’re thinking that those working on editorial pages or writing columns should simply not be faint hearts and, in any case, not mistake the rants of an intolerant few for the views of all readers. Such issues as guns, euthanasia, abortion and gay rights, just to name a few, are guaranteed to elicit passionate and often nasty responses. It comes with the territory.

But, indicating that this anger is not isolated, there’s also the passion that even editorials on less evocative issues seem to spark. It gets to the point of name-calling. There also is this swirling whirlpool of intolerance and intransigence occurring elsewhere, quite divorced from the editorial pages.

For instance, talk radio and shout TV are now seemingly permanent fixtures on the media landscape. These are staffed by folks, many of whom require identifying villains to stay in business. Yes, we journalists can smugly conclude that these are not really journalists. But I’m not sure the public is making the same distinctions.

Then there’s a seeming reliance on fake news — notably Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” — for value beyond just entertainment. Stewart’s craft involves ridicule more than sharing information. Even if he acknowledges his to be “fake” news, conversations with young folks lead me to believe that some genuinely believe it to be less fake than what the “non-fake” news offers.

Giving both sides is apparently boring. News as a stand-up routine is far more appealing.

The last presidential election was a testament to both the fondness for, and efficacy of, the smear from both sides. Voters buy it. And Congress itself seems paralyzed these days by ideology, and its twin, demonization.

Editorial and op-ed pages should provoke.In short, there seems to be an increasing penchant for not really wanting to consider the other view. It is simply easier to shout it down. Or characterize the other side as deluded. Or, at the extreme, evil.

So, why does all this pose a threat to editorial and op-ed pages?

Well, if staking out a position consistently offends, and balance is viewed as boring, this does not bode well for the longevity of such pages. It’s what we do.

Though editorial boards often have distinct political leanings, the good ones pride themselves on reaching conclusions issue by issue. In other words, keeping open minds, engaging in devil’s advocacy if consensus appears too effortless on the board, and considering the counter arguments in the editorials themselves.

But I get the sense that many readers view such balance as intellectual mushiness. And the temptation for editorial page editors is to tip the balance too far, in editorials and on op-ed pages, in favor of one side or the other. Or they simply aim for a gray middle. In other words, rather than arriving at a position on a case-by-case analysis, such pages may end up arriving at pre-determined opinion. And doing so according to the prevailing ideological winds in a community for fear of giving offense, and getting those dreaded cancellations from subscribers.

But editorial and op-ed pages should provoke. Unfortunately, offense is often a natural and unavoidable byproduct in this day and age.

The way to temper this offense, in the case of editorials, is to employ sound reasoning. And they could consider the counter-arguments in reaching editorial conclusions. In the case of op-ed pages, it is picking the best reasoned arguments period. These, I’m sure, will come from throughout the political spectrum.

This will not satisfy everyone. But editorial pages are not in the business of even attempting this.

This tendency to view those who disagree as slime buckets is, I’m convinced, widespread. The cure, if there is one, is not to simply choose sides and put on the blinders. It’s to keep the balance and diversity of views coming. And to keep those lines of communication to readers open.