Mary,

Agree with much of what you said, though I may disagree slightly with your comments on the WaPost. I too hold Pincus and most other journalists at the Post in high regard, but doesn't it seem that many of their editorials have missed the boat a bit lately?

MisterOpus1,

(Actually, I'm the author of the post). Editorial boards are rather unpredictable and we can't hold the quality of the newspaper to the vagaries and idiocies of the editorials. The WSJ is another good paper which would be considered trash if one only looked at their editorials. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but not my dissing the paper at large, in my view.

Indeed, the WaPo has some really awful op-ed columnists a well (e.g., Charles Krauthammer). That should not detract from how we evaluate the paper's *news reporting*.

eriposte,

Oops! Sorry about the author mixup. And I cannot disagree nor deny with your point about editorial boards compared to the actual newspaper journalists. I guess my problem is, why create or allow such a dichotomy? Does this really bode well for the paper itself? I can come across a terrific article by Pincus in the Post, but then flip to the editorials and see the Editorial Board itself say something completely offbase on the Democratic position on the filibuster.

My concern is not towards Krauthammer, George Will, Peter Beinart, David Broder, etc. In fact I think one would concede the majority opinion columnists in the Post tend to be left of center. I tend to think of that old saying about "opinions are like a$$holes..." when reading opinion journalists in general, even though they can and do bring very good points. I think this diversity of opinion by these journalists is both expected and vital to any paper. My beef really is with the Editorial Board itself. I feel very strongly that any time a paper allows an Editorial Board to speak on a given issue, that issue should be well-supported in the exact same manner that a front-page investigative journalist is obligated to do. Unfortunately I tend not to see this.

We spend a lot of time pissing and moaning about the sorry state of journalism, but we tend to make the mistake of focusing on the hack writers--Why don't we zero in on the media owners and the editors? That is where the editorial agenda is set; the writers are simply the tools, the mouthpiece.

I'm amazed that given all the grumbling about NYT writers Nicholas Kristoff and Judith Miller and Adam Nagourney, the name A.O. Sulzberger is rarely mentioned.

Amen to the recognition due both Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel in particular, and K-R in general. When the greater part of the press is acting like puppies, rolling over and wetting themselves in an excess of submissive ingratiation, these gentlemen quietly go out and report actual news cleanly and clearly.

I've been trying to find examples of praiseworthy news reporting to highlight and have written about Landay, for one, recently. I like the idea of a coordinated award, though. Naive thought, but perhaps something like the Koufax? Who knows, maybe the people who deserve such a thing would feel complimented by it...

(This highlights the need for more coffee ...)

Regards,
-- Dog, etc.

MisterOpus1,

Your point:
"I feel very strongly that any time a paper allows an Editorial Board to speak on a given issue, that issue should be well-supported in the exact same manner that a front-page investigative journalist is obligated to do. Unfortunately I tend not to see this."

...is absolutely valid. We need to focus on this as well when we consider media reform. I certainly intend to. My comment was not in any way a justification of the lack of attention to facts in editorials. It was simply to point out that all media need a space for people (and editors) to state their opinions. It is obvious that such opinions should be based on facts, but the reality is unfortunately different.

I have the best idea! Quit reading editorials all together and get people to think for themselves. I'm yet to read an editorial that in my humble opionion does not suck. Give me a paper that gives me the facts, and I'll come up with my own opinions, I don't need some schmuck to tell me how to think.