(This space intentionally left blank)
I never agree with anyone who says journalists are lazy and overpaid, but today I'll make an exception. Today's editorial page in the Enquirer doesn't have an editorial. It has a "featured letter." No editorial.
Most decent newspapers have two or three editorials a day. In Chattanooga, Tenn., the Times Free Press has two editorial boards and two editorial pages every day. The Enquirer most days has one, maybe two editorials, and today, zero. There are five writers on the editorial board, and they apparently can't produce seven opinions in a week. Jim Borgman by himself produces five cartoons a week, and does the Zits comic strip as well. This makes the editorial board look lazy, and if you're an editorial writer who's just shuffling readers' letters not writing editorials, then you're overpaid.
If you want to see what a real editorial looks like, read Sunday's "Must-Do List" in the New York Times. I don't agree with everything there, but at least the Times' editorial board has the guts to take a stand. The Enquirer's editorial board would rather punt than go for it. Losers punt.
The Enquirer invites you to write in and tell them what you think of today editorial page. "We turned today's Editorial Page over to our readers," they say. Write to them at letters@enquirer.com and tell them to get their lazy asses back to work and come up with something to say.
Most decent newspapers have two or three editorials a day. In Chattanooga, Tenn., the Times Free Press has two editorial boards and two editorial pages every day. The Enquirer most days has one, maybe two editorials, and today, zero. There are five writers on the editorial board, and they apparently can't produce seven opinions in a week. Jim Borgman by himself produces five cartoons a week, and does the Zits comic strip as well. This makes the editorial board look lazy, and if you're an editorial writer who's just shuffling readers' letters not writing editorials, then you're overpaid.
If you want to see what a real editorial looks like, read Sunday's "Must-Do List" in the New York Times. I don't agree with everything there, but at least the Times' editorial board has the guts to take a stand. The Enquirer's editorial board would rather punt than go for it. Losers punt.
The Enquirer invites you to write in and tell them what you think of today editorial page. "We turned today's Editorial Page over to our readers," they say. Write to them at letters@enquirer.com and tell them to get their lazy asses back to work and come up with something to say.
posted by Newsache at 1:47 PM
8 Comments:
I'm rolling over IN MY GRAVE, people. However, I said it best in 1988 after I retired:
So what else have I accomplished in 28 years as editorial page editor of The Cincinnati Enquirer?
Practically nothing.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3771/is_199810/ai_n8819837
In Kentucky shouldn't it have read:
We turned today's Editorial Page over to Ohio readers, who wrote on topics such as Al Gore and illegal immigration. Tell Kentuckians what you think. E-mail to letters@enquirer.com
Until the end of the year we still have the Post. I don't have to like what they have to say to be glad that they are aware we are here.
Allowing unpaid members of the community to take over the page could be a sign of further, permanent job cuts at the Enquirer. Maybe they need the salaries for positions to report on parking tickets.
David Wells: Avec mois le deluge.
Pretty soon they'll be trawling their website message boards for editorial content.
Anything to keep from coming up with their own ideas and opinions.
It appears the Enquirer has a growing aversion to taking a stand, like so much of the political landscape it covers. Indeed, the trend would appear to indicate the days of editorial opinion are near an end. Why say something is good or bad, or suggest creative ways to address a problem, if you know you're going to take flack from special-interest power brokers? After all, the truth IS relative, isn't it? The best newspapers stay away from conflicts of interest in their involvement in the community so that they can be leaders without obligation to pressure groups on the left or right. The Enquirer would do well to do so. That build's reader confidence in all aspects of the newspaper's reporting -- whether in print or online. But in the Enquirer's world, taking a strong stand could mean someone in an overly tailored red dress might not agree, and will lambast the publisher. You know the rest. The sad thing is that it is the newspaper's obligation to be a watchdog, not a lapdog. It should cheer when the opportunity presents itself, and it should sharply question when the need arises. But when no one calls on the carpet questionable actions, outrageous public policy or social stupidity, the fat underbelly of political life that thrives in an environment of spin has nothing to fear. After all, everybody is watching the Springer show.
And they couldn't even correct an obvious error: It was Judge RubIn, not Judge RubEn, who was a 30-year federal judge here! Can't they even be bothered to read things before they print them?
The enquirer is both a worthless fence-sitter and a mouthpiece for the wrong side of issues. It could have been a voice of progress by endorsing the public smoking ban in Ohio (and one for Kentucky, for that matter). It endorsed Blackwell for governor when Bush himself knows what a lunatic he is. It is waiting for 99 percent -- nah, 100 -- of the people to disapprove of the war before joining the majority. Then, on one of the safest topics it could touch, that of women's equality in Cincinnati, it doesn't touch on the local corporations who persist in running men's clubs, each with a token woman or two on the executive ladder, usually VP of human resources or public relations. Obvious targets. Obvious failure to take a stand on obvious culprits of keeping women down.
Post a Comment
<< Home