Ideologues of any stripe are seldom satisfied

When there were several newspapers in every city, and most were the personal playthings of publishers with an ax to grind, nobody expected fairness and balance.

Most cities today, however, have only one newspaper and very few more than two. News outlets are owned by corporate chains-usually more concerned with the bottom line than with ideology. To survive, they must attract the widest possible readership, which means trying to provide something for everyone.

With some exceptions, every newspaper tries to be objective-if possible-in its news coverage, as it should. But editors of opinion pages needn't feel obligated to provide what broadcast journalism-overseen by the FCC-calls "opposing points of view."

If you're an opinion editor and consider this important, then by all means try to give space to a wide range of views. But see it as voluntary, not as an obligatory.

Your newspaper has a right to take a position and needn't publish rebuttals-unless you choose to. When I edited op-ed pages on the Philadelphia Daily News, a profoundly liberal paper, I ran columns by Cal Thomas, Paul Greenberg, Charles Krauthammer, Tony Snow, and other conservatives-but by choice, not obligation.

Their columns are provocative, readable, and entertaining. I thought exposing our readers to their views made our section better to read-which, after all, should be the primary consideration.

But I avoided the point/counterpoint concept because it's neither fair nor balanced. As often as not, rather than clarifying an issue, it obfuscates it.

For one thing, there are usually more than two sides to every story. The more complex the issue, the more angles there are. Breaking it down to pro and con oversimplifies.

Also, a personal opinion column-especially one in attack mode-can be more readable and more powerful than an argument that's researched and meant to be reasoned. (This is especially apparent on radio and TV panels and talk shows.) If we're talking about competing ideas, the competition is often unfair and unbalanced; the loudest and most passionate have the advantage.

A column rebutting the position you are taking can be hostile and ad hominem. Readers love it, but you can't respond in kind because, owning the press, you have the last word, so you'd be taking unfair advantage. Also, the writer is your guest; lashing out would be inhospitable.

Our Philadelphia "Big Sister" newspaper, the Inquirer, tried something truly daring in the last presidential campaign. Not only did it endorse John Kerry, but it published a series of twenty-one(!) editorials promoting its pro-Kerry position on specific issues. For those three weeks, it offered op-ed space for rebuttals.

The editorials were strong, well reasoned, and dispassionate-but like most editorials (let's face it), not widely read, especially since the viewpoint was predetermined. I'll bet many more readers read the op-ed rebuttals, some refutable but unchallenged. In effect, the Inquirer was sabotaging its own editorial position.

If fairness and balance is what you're after, good luck, but don't expect those with "opposing views" to appreciate your effort. Ideologues of any stripe are seldom satisfied, unless the "balance" is all in their direction.

And remember, you are the editor. It's your judgment you're being paid for. Your responsibility is not to any pressure group, but to your readers. That's the only commitment you should be making.

Don Harrison, a former NCEW board member, retired from the Philadelphia Daily News in 2001, after 19 years as associate editor of its opinion pages. E-mail milestones@hollister1.com

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