Recently, some have become confused concerning the nature and purpose of the newspaper editorial.
The fundamental dichotomy between news and opinion must first be delineated. The responsibility of the news section is to seek out the truth in an unbiased manner, by way of interviewing all parties involved. This, however, is opinion. We relish our freedom to choose.
Primarily, the editor’s column should serve the purposes of the readership-not for the intention of winning awards, pouring salt in open wounds, or asserting intelligence.
There are just a few simple steps: first, identify the issue at hand. Something timely, significant; something we at least understand enough to write about. Then present it from multiple perspectives. The issue must be examined and criticized from several points of view, several brains, several philosophies, and extrapolated to more-this is the expressed opinion of the editorial staff, presented in an attempt to resolve the issue, and a call to readers to take action on the matter. To close the deal is the omnipresent necessity to plead for compromise. The power of the press ends right here, however; the opinions sent forth like dry ink onto your fingertips from the newspage can simply be rubbed away.
The editorial is what makes newspapers unique; it’s this opinion that detaches you in style and thought from the competition. The Op-Ed page is like a therapy session with the editorial staff; in that small space, you can feel the fears, hopes, threats, and despairs of the dying breed of newspaper journalists. You create an image, to the reader and the advertiser, and built trust and break friendships at the same time.
It’s not an easy task being a newspaper editor. One must assume a form of leadership to daily determine what wisdom, authority, and zeal gets published for the masses.
Every one of the writers for this publication does their homework. We won’t print what isn’t true, and what isn’t worth knowing. We’re not mad.
We see everyday, from one side or another, fun poked at some point of the president’s character. Looks like it’s perfectly within reason and within our rights to assert what we believe, be it about the character of elected officials or any popular opinion. All we can do is make associations, decisions, and recommendations based solely upon what is available to us, defended by truth and our own self-assurance.
We’re half a dozen journalists representing thousands of students, faculty, and alumni. Not everyone will agree with our opinion or understand our ways. Give us our room to work.
We reserve some rights for this space right here; the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives us such liberty.
We reserve the right to advocate change and direction in society, if and when we think its necessary.
We reserve the right to credibility. We examine, we research, and we think our points through. We’re doing this for the benefit of literate society.
We don’t believe that every, or even any reader agrees with us in the least bit.
We won’t be afraid to admit when we’re mistaken.
We reserve the right to stimulate conversation, provoke thought, and inform the public.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.