I'm a retired journalist. I rarely read the editorials of the papers I worked for and can't begin to tell you how many times I had to explain to people the difference between the editorial pages and the rest of the newspaper. They have always seemed like a problem to me.
Wait a minute Mr. Pfeiffer, what in the world is this?
"Some distrust stems from high profile miscues like incorrect CBS News stories about George W. Bush and the national guard, the overly-credulous coverage about WMD in Iraq, and various plagiarism scandals."
You're going to lump what GWB did when he avoided full service in the National Guard with the big lie of WMD's and you don't even mention "her emails"? This is the type of false equivalency you should be criticizing. Dan Rather got set up on 60 minutes with a bunch of false documents but the gist of the story was correct in that GWB did not fulfill his duties like others did. From Wikipedia (not a great source but other sources are available);
"After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots and lost his authorization to be a pilot.[10] According to Bush's pay records, he did not attend any drills between mid-April and the end of October 1972...."
Dan Rather was also setup by GHWB during an interview on CBS evening news.
I agree with the gist of your column, but if you're going to both sides your criticism of news coverage, please find a different example.
Yes, you make excellent points. I have stopped watching cable almost entirely. I want to be aware of what is happening. I am so tired of doom, gloom, and performance politics like little Marjorie 3 names. I want facts, not the latest episodes of nitwits unlimited.
You make excellent points, and…I pre-ordered your book. I’m remembering how much I enjoyed your talk in Cambridge with the last book. It was one of the very last public events I attended before the world shut down in 2020.
I write an "Opinion Piece" every other week for my local Chester County paper. After the first 100 I have a great respect for the Friedman and Krugmans of this world. I'm sure Dan knows what it is like to have to say something profound, and he does it many times a week. I'm sure they all run together, going from Look at this!! to What does that mean? To This is how this information fits into the food chain of goodness that is life. I do hate the Editorial page in the Inquirer with the right leaning guy saying something that he believes and I try to understand how he could believe that but it is just very very dumb. I don't envy them. I do think George Will is rather good at "keeping the faith' but not being dumb. Though his best articles tend to be about the Cubs. I still like the challenge of saying something profound that is in the context of the blue and red mind sets. But just because Pod Save America puts out so much media that includes so many great editorials that they feel everyone else should stop trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is just lazy. Allow the newspapers to piss off their readers. And consider providing thoughts that include editorials, where we don't have to listen to at least 3 hours a week of conversation to get the good stuff. Like the message box.
Question: As a journalist, I understand the problems that stem from people not knowing about the firewalls of between the news and opinion sections. But it seems that in writing this editorial, The Times editorial board did its job: it incited a public debate about an important topic. In this regard, isn't the media still doing its job?
Do you feel this applies to op-eds, too, or just editorials? Seems like given people's hunger for opinions/analysis, it's nice to be able to find some reasonably vetted opinions (Thomas Friedman vs. your dentist). Maybe the issue is really labeling. As you say, it's harder to tell online that something is on the op-ed page.
But maybe that could be mitigated with an agreed-on visual clue that could be used industry-wide to designate opinion content? For that matter, I'd love to see the same on TV - it's shocking that Fox's opinion content runs with a "Fox News" logo on the page, as though what's being reported is news. There should be a requirement that the word "news" not appear on opinion shows, and some other visual indicator should be used to show that it's opinion, not news.
In short, I don't think it's reasonable to expect newspapers (or tv) to get rid of opinion pieces - but we could make it clear to readers/viewers what they're seeing.
I think it’s more pernicious. Opinion frequently and subtly creeps into the hard news stories. As silly as it sounds, everyone should watch Anchorman 2 about the birth of 24/7 cable news. It’s fiction but so true!
You're missing something big here, Dan. "Our media ecosystem" is part of our economic ecosystem, and that's a big reason why it "sorely lacks solid reporting, facts, data, and context." Solid reporting, editing, fact-checking, and the rest cost money. Democracy may indeed depend on "a free and vibrant media," but most of our media are not nonprofit. They may wrap themselves in the First Amendment, but they aren't public servants or public utilities. The ones with the biggest reach and deepest saturation are owned by big corporations. They're actually fine with "more people giving their opinions online" because those opinions feed the outrage machines, and while those clicks may not generate subscriptions, they do interest advertisers.
I'm not sure if you're lumping op-ed columns in with editorials, but I'd like to say a good word for them. Not all of them, of course -- they vary in quality just like everything else. But I depend on the columnists and other commentators whose work is rigorously based on solid reporting and knowledge of context. To make the most of day-to-day reporting, you have to provide your own context. There are only a handful of subjects I know that well. For the rest I rely on commentators who know the territory better than I do. I may argue with their analysis and disagree with their conclusions, but they make me think.
This is also true of the podcasts and Substacks that I follow -- and now that I think of it, how different are they from editorials and op-eds? For sure my criteria for deciding which ones to read and (gasp!) subscribe to are similar.
Your proposal might work if writers described their relationship to the specific news events or the news-informed opinions they write. I doubt you would disagree that a writer’s context and perspective shape how she interprets events, people, and topics. I also think you would agree that writers do have some choices about how to deploy their point of view.
One option: I can lean into interpretation from my point of view and offer my best — and absolutely transparent — critical thinking. A different option: I can note for myself and my reader that I’m trying to bracket — but not hide — the impact of my assumptions while I sort through information that needs to be summarized and organized.
So I agree with you: given our digital media landscape and given that everything is written contains the author/s point of view, let’s get rid of the meaningless editorial assumption that readers know “which section” of the newspaper they’re reading. But given the difference between leaning into interpretation and consciously attempting (in good faith) to acknowledge but bracket one’s point of view, the best solution requires people to write a simple sentence or two that tells readers what to expect.
This doesn’t solve the propaganda problem, of course. Propaganda happens when the writer either doesn’t know she’s participating in constructing or maintaining a demonstrably unfounded narrative or the writer knows but lies about what she’s doing.
I feel like this would be a great opinion piece in a prominent newspaper. Had to say it…
I'm a retired journalist. I rarely read the editorials of the papers I worked for and can't begin to tell you how many times I had to explain to people the difference between the editorial pages and the rest of the newspaper. They have always seemed like a problem to me.
Wait a minute Mr. Pfeiffer, what in the world is this?
"Some distrust stems from high profile miscues like incorrect CBS News stories about George W. Bush and the national guard, the overly-credulous coverage about WMD in Iraq, and various plagiarism scandals."
You're going to lump what GWB did when he avoided full service in the National Guard with the big lie of WMD's and you don't even mention "her emails"? This is the type of false equivalency you should be criticizing. Dan Rather got set up on 60 minutes with a bunch of false documents but the gist of the story was correct in that GWB did not fulfill his duties like others did. From Wikipedia (not a great source but other sources are available);
"After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots and lost his authorization to be a pilot.[10] According to Bush's pay records, he did not attend any drills between mid-April and the end of October 1972...."
Dan Rather was also setup by GHWB during an interview on CBS evening news.
I agree with the gist of your column, but if you're going to both sides your criticism of news coverage, please find a different example.
Yes, you make excellent points. I have stopped watching cable almost entirely. I want to be aware of what is happening. I am so tired of doom, gloom, and performance politics like little Marjorie 3 names. I want facts, not the latest episodes of nitwits unlimited.
You make excellent points, and…I pre-ordered your book. I’m remembering how much I enjoyed your talk in Cambridge with the last book. It was one of the very last public events I attended before the world shut down in 2020.
I write an "Opinion Piece" every other week for my local Chester County paper. After the first 100 I have a great respect for the Friedman and Krugmans of this world. I'm sure Dan knows what it is like to have to say something profound, and he does it many times a week. I'm sure they all run together, going from Look at this!! to What does that mean? To This is how this information fits into the food chain of goodness that is life. I do hate the Editorial page in the Inquirer with the right leaning guy saying something that he believes and I try to understand how he could believe that but it is just very very dumb. I don't envy them. I do think George Will is rather good at "keeping the faith' but not being dumb. Though his best articles tend to be about the Cubs. I still like the challenge of saying something profound that is in the context of the blue and red mind sets. But just because Pod Save America puts out so much media that includes so many great editorials that they feel everyone else should stop trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is just lazy. Allow the newspapers to piss off their readers. And consider providing thoughts that include editorials, where we don't have to listen to at least 3 hours a week of conversation to get the good stuff. Like the message box.
Question: As a journalist, I understand the problems that stem from people not knowing about the firewalls of between the news and opinion sections. But it seems that in writing this editorial, The Times editorial board did its job: it incited a public debate about an important topic. In this regard, isn't the media still doing its job?
Do you feel this applies to op-eds, too, or just editorials? Seems like given people's hunger for opinions/analysis, it's nice to be able to find some reasonably vetted opinions (Thomas Friedman vs. your dentist). Maybe the issue is really labeling. As you say, it's harder to tell online that something is on the op-ed page.
But maybe that could be mitigated with an agreed-on visual clue that could be used industry-wide to designate opinion content? For that matter, I'd love to see the same on TV - it's shocking that Fox's opinion content runs with a "Fox News" logo on the page, as though what's being reported is news. There should be a requirement that the word "news" not appear on opinion shows, and some other visual indicator should be used to show that it's opinion, not news.
In short, I don't think it's reasonable to expect newspapers (or tv) to get rid of opinion pieces - but we could make it clear to readers/viewers what they're seeing.
I think it’s more pernicious. Opinion frequently and subtly creeps into the hard news stories. As silly as it sounds, everyone should watch Anchorman 2 about the birth of 24/7 cable news. It’s fiction but so true!
Haven't read a newspaper editorial in 20 years. Don't imagine I've missed anything and I'm decently well informed.
You're missing something big here, Dan. "Our media ecosystem" is part of our economic ecosystem, and that's a big reason why it "sorely lacks solid reporting, facts, data, and context." Solid reporting, editing, fact-checking, and the rest cost money. Democracy may indeed depend on "a free and vibrant media," but most of our media are not nonprofit. They may wrap themselves in the First Amendment, but they aren't public servants or public utilities. The ones with the biggest reach and deepest saturation are owned by big corporations. They're actually fine with "more people giving their opinions online" because those opinions feed the outrage machines, and while those clicks may not generate subscriptions, they do interest advertisers.
I'm not sure if you're lumping op-ed columns in with editorials, but I'd like to say a good word for them. Not all of them, of course -- they vary in quality just like everything else. But I depend on the columnists and other commentators whose work is rigorously based on solid reporting and knowledge of context. To make the most of day-to-day reporting, you have to provide your own context. There are only a handful of subjects I know that well. For the rest I rely on commentators who know the territory better than I do. I may argue with their analysis and disagree with their conclusions, but they make me think.
This is also true of the podcasts and Substacks that I follow -- and now that I think of it, how different are they from editorials and op-eds? For sure my criteria for deciding which ones to read and (gasp!) subscribe to are similar.
Your proposal might work if writers described their relationship to the specific news events or the news-informed opinions they write. I doubt you would disagree that a writer’s context and perspective shape how she interprets events, people, and topics. I also think you would agree that writers do have some choices about how to deploy their point of view.
One option: I can lean into interpretation from my point of view and offer my best — and absolutely transparent — critical thinking. A different option: I can note for myself and my reader that I’m trying to bracket — but not hide — the impact of my assumptions while I sort through information that needs to be summarized and organized.
So I agree with you: given our digital media landscape and given that everything is written contains the author/s point of view, let’s get rid of the meaningless editorial assumption that readers know “which section” of the newspaper they’re reading. But given the difference between leaning into interpretation and consciously attempting (in good faith) to acknowledge but bracket one’s point of view, the best solution requires people to write a simple sentence or two that tells readers what to expect.
This doesn’t solve the propaganda problem, of course. Propaganda happens when the writer either doesn’t know she’s participating in constructing or maintaining a demonstrably unfounded narrative or the writer knows but lies about what she’s doing.
Thanks Dan! As always, spot on with your observations. Pre-ordered your book. Looking forward to another great read!