advertisement

Anatomy of an editorial: How group engagement gives paper a singular voice

A writer for an editorial board cannot escape a certain chill of anathema.

It is the natural impulse of the essayist or pamphleteer to summon personal instincts, insights and passions when fashioning an argument intended to move or persuade others. But no two people share exactly the same instincts, insights or passions, and on an editorial board of several engaged and often strong-willed individuals, instincts, insights and passions are bound to diverge and conflict. How then to produce a thought-provoking argument that doesn't merely reflect the views of a single writer but reflects and includes those of the entire group - and at the same time represents the personality and political and social bearing of the institution for whom they are speaking?

Such a mission is likely not every writer's cup of tea, but I find the group engagement process uniquely interesting and - amid the backdrop of a minor scandal involving The New York Times Opinion page this week - a deeper look at the development of one of our editorials this week may help you see why.

First, a quick summary of how our editorial board works. Our board members are the individuals named at the top of our Opinion page, most of whom have additional duties in addition to their contributions to our editorials and are routinely responsible for serving as the lead writer of an editorial. For any given topic, the responsible writer will issue a pitch for a proposed position, take feedback from the full board - and sometimes solicit thoughts from our advisory sounding board - then write the editorial. The finished editorial is then resubmitted to the board for review, reaction and possibly revision.

Sometimes an idea sails through this process effortlessly with only moderate debate or revision. Sometimes, ideas will go through several iterations before they are molded into the form of the editorial that is published. The editorial I wrote for Wednesday's paper was a case in point somewhere in the middle of those extremes, yet it demonstrates vividly the value and impact of the group dynamic.

Our topic was the Washington NFL organization's announcement that it would change its team name in response to complaints that the name was offensive to Native Americans. I sent an email pitch to the editorial board expressing support for that decision - which was consistent with official Daily Herald policy going back nearly seven years virtually banning use of the name. The pitch produced a substantial amount of reflection from the board - as well as some video background from the sounding board - but was given clarity when one editorial board member replied, "I would ask this question: Since many of our schools changed their mascots, how have things changed for Native Americans? ... (The Washington decision is) all very nice, but now what? What are the real issues facing Native Americans and how do we as a country address them when we're trying to address so many other issues?"

Thus was I given a focus I hadn't had before and it became the main point of the editorial I would write. But, the story does not end there. I submitted to the board a tough, somewhat derisive editorial. One member had concerns. "This editorial assumes a great groundswell of support for the name change ...," he wrote back. "I would prefer that we use this issue to educate and to bring people along. That is, that we recognize that a great many fans, and no doubt a great many readers, view these names as harmless traditions, no matter what their original intent. ... I think it's possible to persuade and then to call on our better angels to not stop here: Let's also use this moment to really address the problems that face Native Americans in our society and the systemic bigotry and stereotypes they must confront."

He was right, of course. One of the great shortcomings of opinion writing is in how easy it is for the writer to fall in love with his or her own prose and cleverness without realizing how it may strike readers. I went back to the beginning and developed the editorial that ultimately appeared in print and online. As with any piece of opinion, individual readers may agree or disagree with the position or even long for something more, but there is no question in my mind that the published editorial is more insightful, more nuanced and more engaging than would have been the case if I had simply written my own reactions from the outset.

There is, of course, a time and place for a "Common Sense" or a "95 Theses" or a "Walden" and the imprint of an individual's singular vision on a political or social topic. But there is also no substitute for, and an equally unique value in, a work of opinion influenced by many minds.

jslusher@dailyherald.com

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.