Fallout from the Blow-Up

When Michael Kinsley launched his now-famous mixology experiment on the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times in June, he happily declared he had no idea how things would turn out. Little did he know it would end with his status at the Times in limbo.

He was like FDR and the New Deal. What would take? What would work? Nobody knows, but nothing will save the future of opinion pages if you don't at least flirt with the seemingly bizarre.

Thus, the "wiki." Would the "wikitorial" - a vaguely Polynesian-sounding concoction that invited readers to help write Times editorials themselves-redefine the newspapers opinion pages? Might it become the egalitarian vanguard of a new "community" voice? Or might it just blow things up?

As it happened, there was a bit too much rum in Kinsleys wiki punch. Presented with the opportunity to fabricate an opinion on the Times' online pages, a lot of readers saw it as a great opportunity to show off their pornography collections. Others stuck to the written word, but some of those words had never before seen print on LA. Times pages. After a couple days, the wiki experiment went wobbly, and down it came.

To a lot of critics of Kinsleys anything-goes style of innovation, the wilting of the wiki constituted a victory for the view that institutional voice still has meaning.

Yes, they argued, the dynamics between opinion pages and their readers are changing. But not to the point that the vital premise of editorials should be abandoned.

In this issue of The Masthead, we have brought together what I (humbly) believe is a great group of writers analyzing what Mike hath wrought.

As he has since the Big Blow-Up began, Times editorial page editor Andres Martinez does an admirable job of taking on critics of the changes he and Kinsley have implemented. And his views are underscored vigorously by two of America's finest minds regarding cutting-edge technology and its effect on the delivery of news: Jan Schaffer of the Institute for Interactive Journalism at the University of Maryland, College Park; and Robert Niles, editor of Online Journalism Review.

Opposing the Kinsley approach to change are two journalists with impressive, immediate knowledge of the terrain: Former LA. Times Washington bureau chief Jack Nelson and Northeastern University's Stephen Burgard, who served on the Times' editorial board for twelve years.

I would like to thank Jack Nelson in particular for his fine essay, in that he took the time to participate in this debate at a most difficult time in life.

Jack's good friend, Paul Duke-for twenty years the congenial moderator of PBSs "Washington Week" -died July 18, which to my great regret was around the time I had asked for Jack's copy. What a splendid newsman you are, Jack Nelson.

Two other points, quickly made:

This is convention time, of course. And we have convention news. I had thought Susan Nielsen was the funniest convention host-writer ever. She might still be. But in this issue, prospective hosts Paul Greenberg and David Holwerk left me weeping, I tell you! Weeping!

Last, voting NCEW members should make a point of checking out the "Shoptalk" section for an important announcement regarding our organizations by-laws. We will vote on the change September 17 in Portland. Hope to see you all there!

-Doug MacEachern

Copyright MASTHEAD National Conference of Editorial Writers Autumn 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved