In Defense of Editorials
The piece opens like this:
Simply put, talk is cheap these days. The advent of cable news lowered the bar of entry into the public discussion; the Internet has almost totally obliterated it.It then adds some grudging "well, maybe editorials still matter" testimonials before ending with this dirge-like kicker:
As the masses realize they can participate in the public discourse without a third party, newspaper editorials may slowly become - like copyboys and typewriters - a quaint tradition.No doubt. Talk is cheap nowadays. And the public can participate in the public discourse. But far from being a techno-utopia, today's spicy media jambalaya of blogs, cable news debates and talk radio shows doesn't always lend itself to reasoned, step-by-step political and cultural discussion. And that's part of their appeal.
But there is a skill and a craft to editorial writing that remains unique in MediaLand. One of my favorite books in recent years is "Outrage, Passion and Uncommon Sense," a look back at the most influential editorials in American newspaper history. (Including the "What's The Matter With Kansas" editorial from 1896 that makes one wonder if Thomas Frank should pay the Emporia Gazetta royalties for his signature schtick.)
Editorials are firm and informed – and yes, slanted to the paper's editorial worldview. Some days, they take on Big News like today's Washington Post editorial about Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. But most times the editorial page is a grab bag. The same Los Angeles Times editorial page that took the step to suggest that the military "Bring Them Home" on May 6 had moved on to "Politicizing Communion" and "Stamps Rise Again" days later. There are not a whole lot of blogs with that sort of breadth.
Editorials are like Cliff's Notes for news junkies -- they allow people to sample opinion on a wide range of topics without having to sift through the blogs or sit through the cable screamfests. Unlike those poor copyboys, I don't think their time has quite come.