Who We Are, What We Do, and Why
October 23, 2006 | 7:54
am
Today is an important milestone in the evolution of the Opinion section -- we're moving up to the newly redesigned A section of the newspaper. To mark the occasion we have used the opportunity to step back and reintroduce ourselves to you, shed a bit of light on what we do, how we do it, and why.
Ever wonder about the editorial board's philosophy? Wonder no more (or at least less) by reading our Mission Statement. Here's an excerpt:Manhappenin' Beach Spring Street Project. We just wanted to lay our cards on the table, answer questions we're asked daily, and stick it online for future reference. Let us know what you think!
We reject overreaching moves by public authorities to control the culture or private mores. Citizens' right to privacy, to decide for themselves how best to lead their lives, is fundamental. It is in keeping with our Western roots to champion individual autonomy and the freedom of conscience.Much more where that came from. There's also an explanation of how we arrive at our (usually) three unsigned editorials per day. Excerpt:
The writing of editorials is a team effort; they aren't columns reflecting any one person's viewpoint. A member of the board (editors included) can't write an editorial endorsing a position in the absence of consensus among the group. That is not to say we are a full democracy. Editor Andres Martinez and Deputy Editor Michael Newman have a bigger say, especially in wielding a veto, and both report directly to the publisher, who has an even bigger say.And you can, for the first time, meet the members of the editorial board, find out what they cover and where they've been. And what of the Op-Ed side of the page? Read an explanation from Op-Ed Editor Nicholas Goldberg. Excerpt:
Sometimes we get e-mails complaining that the pieces we've run are biased. To which we reply: Of course they are! Unlike the articles in our news pages (where reporters endeavor to be objective), our articles are opinion pieces; bias and a point of view are expected. In that sense, they're like the editorials that appear on the opposite side of the page (Op-Ed, get it?). [...] People often want to know whether we seek balance on the page. The answer, as best I can give it, is this: We want a page that is politically balanced over time — not leaning too heavily to the left or the right — but we don't monitor it day to day, or count Democrats versus Republicans. Similarly, we seek diversity of thought and diversity of contributors — we want provocative ideas from people of all races, genders, religions, etc. — but again, we don't try to balance the number of women to men on every single page.And our 10 regular Op-Ed columnists each re-introduce themselves to you. Here, for example, is a taste of Joel Stein:
Basically, what I do is the opposite of "Seinfeld": I turn something into nothing. To get that perspective, I try to find the small angle on the story no one has looked at. My column is not a place for readers to pick up facts and figures to bolster your already ingrained arguments. And that's only partly because finding facts and figures takes a lot of work.And finally, Letters Editor Julie Ryan Green announces that the newly designed page will add more space for letters (at the expense of editorials), and explains how she goes about her work. Excerpt:
On any particular topic, we try to represent the volume and variety of opinions expressed by our mail, not necessarily an even number of pro and con positions. Every day, an average of 800 readers share their thoughts with us. We can print only a dozen or so letters daily, but about a year ago we began to share more of our readers' comments by posting additional letters online at latimes.com/letters. How can you improve your chances of getting published? Be succinct; we seldom publish letters of more than 150 words. Your letter also should be exclusive to The Times and must include where you live and provide a daytime phone number for verification purposes.To pre-emptively answer one question, no, the motivation for this episode of public confession has nothing to do with the appointment of a new publisher, nor is it part of the
1. Most of what is "wrong" with the LAT is the fact now raising its ugly head to the elites at the LAT: media telling us what we already knew yesterday is not worth the fifty cent charge.
2. The elite gathering together in a room writing an editorial that will finally be approved by that same group says it all.
Posted by: Howard Veit | November 03, 2006 at 11:29 PM
A quick comment on Opinion vs Op-Ed vs Left vs Right...
Could you help us a little by sorting out who's writing about what? The Editors' Editorials are obviously the opinion of the paper. You boxed in a section for that. But there's nothing identifying Op-Ed columns, unless we assume ALL the other columns are opinions opposing the Editorial staff. But since there's no identifier, I just assume all the articles reflect the Editiors' views. And that totally confuses me when I read Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, or Niall Ferguson in a "Liberal" publication.
So here's my suggestion - Put an "Op-Ed" in the upper left corner of all the pieces that reflect a predominantly opposing view from the Editors. Break your colunmists into the same two categories based on their predominant world view, and identify them as "Times Columnist" and "Times Op-Ed Columnist" in the upper left corner above their names.
That way, I know what the product I'm about to read is going to give me and I won't be so shocked, wondering why the Times POV has changed so psychotically.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 29, 2006 at 12:35 PM
“Sometimes we get e-mails complaining that the pieces we've run are biased. To which we reply: Of course they are! Unlike the articles in our news pages (where reporters endeavor to be objective), our articles are opinion pieces; bias and a point of view are expected.”
This statement by Op-Ed Editor Nicholas Goldberg is specious. No reasonable person expects individual opinion pieces to not have a point of view. A lack of bias in opinion editing is not really that different from the kind of benchmark for reporting that I posted earlier to the “Manhattan Project” entry. It was from Professor Lee Ross of
Stanford University who offered it on the NewsHour earlier this year: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec06/bias_08-17.html
"But I think the minimal definition of unbiased or objective coverage should be coverage in which each side thinks that its own case has been fairly presented. They may think that the criticisms of that case are unfair, but they should feel that their basic position was articulated in a way that they recognize and are willing to own as, indeed, being their own views."
Only in opinion editing there is no need to rely on a third party to fairly articulate positions. What is required is allowing principal representatives of viewpoints with significant support adequate space to counter the opposing views that the paper publishes. This is the hallmark of the free exchange of ideas embodied in the First Amendment, which is referenced in your mission statement. Apparently defending “the rights of all citizens” doesn’t extend to allowing those who disagree with the paper’s agenda a fair chance to argue their case before the court of public opinion.
Far and away the issue where the LA Times opinion bias is most egregious is immigration. Beginning with the ubiquitous op-eds by Tamar Jacoby, there is no semblance of offering balanced opportunities to debate a vital issue of national importance and one that has even greater significance to this state. I welcome Jacoby, other writers and the Times editorial staff the opportunity to argue for their immigration agenda. But your readers deserve to be able to weigh opposing arguments against these opinions. Why doesn’t the paper publish a page with links to all your immigration op-eds, columns and editorials so that readers may survey how you have managed the debate? I think the vast majority of people would find it quite reasonable if the paper would make a commitment to giving space to the significant segment of the electorate who believes in limiting immigration and enforcing the laws that are necessary for that to happen. I love to hear a response from the editors.
Posted by: riposter | October 24, 2006 at 10:48 AM
I still can't figure out the layout of your on-line editorial page. Why list an article twice? It's very confusing.
Posted by: Jason J. Poston | October 24, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Several of your columnists are worthless. In addition to your paper, I read the Washington Post and NY Times (which have conservative columnists like David Brooks and George F. Will) every day; and I increasingly find myself skipping over much of your op-ed page.
Why would a paper of your (former) stature give any space to illogical, unrealistic people like Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg?
To paraphrase Lewis Black, "Can't we just agree on what reality is? If a cat is run over by steamroller, why would anyone think it committed suicide?"
Posted by: Philip Martin | October 24, 2006 at 07:25 AM
I read the paper online from Milwaukee. Along with the NY Times, the LA Times is a daily must for good reporting and analysis, and I for one do tend to agree with your editorial stance; I am liberal and proud to use the word, just as a conservative ought to be proud of that title. Both are needed. Anyway, with the cable news becoming "infotainment," and the AM raido airwaves becoming dominated by conservatives who take marching orders from the Drudge Report, your perspective is much appreciated.
Posted by: Steven | October 23, 2006 at 08:03 PM
Here's my question: why,in the Sunday Currents section, are there always pieces by people who just happen to have a book coming out on the very subject about which they're writing? Maybe you guys think this is fabulous synergy, but it always looks like a press release and/or free advertising to me.
The iPod guy--I guess it's timely (the anniversary of an Apple product needs an op-ed?) but it's basically an ad for the book. If you want to run an except, well, okay, if you must, but why?
Posted by: Kate Coe | October 23, 2006 at 05:32 PM
The Times has run opinions disguised as news stories in the A section for years. At least now, you're removing any doubt.
I do appreciate that this year's election included a couple of endorsements for Republican candidates. Perhaps the Times really is seeking an independent "opinion" voice instead of being so reflexively single-party-minded.
Posted by: csufbomb | October 23, 2006 at 02:27 PM