Newspapers Should Get Out Of The Opinion Business

Posted by on Jun 23, 2011 in Media Industry | 13 comments

If you want my opinion, it’s time for newspapers to get out of the opinion business.

Yes, opinion pages are good for civic discourse – but I believe they’re also bad for business. At some point soon, for-profit daily newspapers are going to have to choose one or the other. The conversation has already started at The New York Times.

A column by Executive Editor Bill Keller in last Sunday’s edition laid out plans to make over the Gray Lady’s Sunday opinion section, heretofore called Week In Review. Starting Sunday, wrote Keller, the section will be renamed Sunday Review, “the last vestiges of a weekly summing up replaced by a more general timeliness, and that dividing wall breached, so that argument (which will be labeled Opinion) can appear alongside explanation (which will be labeled News Analysis.)”

I’d argue that’s a step in the wrong direction.

When I was a kid, my buddy’s dad was fond of telling us: “Boys, opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one.” Back then, water coolers and backyard fences, or, in my case, my buddy’s dad’s Northeast Minneapolis auto body repair shop, were the kinds of places you would turn for opinions on current events. In those days, newspapers were still a powerful and influential community voice, and, given the lack of competition, it made sense for them to take a stand on the issues of the day. Beyond the rants of a soap-box-toting neighbor, readers simply had fewer authoritative opinion options.

Today, however, people have largely ditched the water cooler, backyard fence, and newspapers for that matter, and are finding and expressing opinions on countless blogs, forums, Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, news media comment sections, and on and on. Want opinions on the latest movie? You used to have to wait for the newspaper’s critic to weigh in. Today, you can turn to Rotten Tomatoes and countless other sites. Music? Same. Sports? Politics? You get the idea.

Amidst this digital cacophony, I believe newspapers continue to risk alienating partisan readers, who now have the option of turning to other places for news that more closely fits their worldview: Huffington Post, Drudge, etc. The business problem for newspapers comes down to increased competition and branding.

Locally, for example, the Star Tribune has shifted its editorial voice a bit more to the right, but it is still widely considered a liberal paper, derided and dismissed as the “Red Star” among those on the right. Most daily newspapers have a well-cemented ideological “brand,” and more partisan readers increasingly see no distinction between “objective” news stories and opinion. You need only peruse the reader comments following any online news article to watch the inevitable ideological skirmish break out. It’s usually not long before the paper is accused of bias in its reporting.

In short, in this digital age, when the entire newspaper is colored by the same ideological brush, the perceived lack of objectivity can now keep a good many readers away. And that’s bad for a newspaper’s business.

I acknowledge the critical civic role a well-reasoned newspaper editorial plays. Unless we can clone I.F. Stone, however, opinion is still much easier to replace than a newsroom full of good journalists working beats and reporting on local, national and international issues and stories. I have fewer concerns about the marketplace filling the opinion void. It’s already happening, as previously noted. The reporting void? Scares the hell out of me. There are some non-profit models popping up, like ProPublica and MinnPost, while for-profit, online-only entities like Talking Points Memo and the hyper-local Patch.com sites are doing some good stuff, but I fear that with each daily newspaper that dies, we forever lose a critical local mass of experienced journalistic boots on the ground.

I do agree with Keller that newspapers ought to stay in the news analysis business. A good reporter can offer depth and perspective to a news story that comes with knowledge gleaned while working a beat. In an era of news breaking on Twitter, even the basic who, what, where, why and when is in danger of becoming a commodity the same way opinion is. But the in-depth reporting and analysis of a seasoned and well-informed journalist will forever be in short supply. People who want to see bias will always find it. But the point is that the paper’s opinion pages will no longer validate their claims, offering the opportunity to reclaim more partisan readers over time. Some can even hasten the change by rebranding. In short, newspapers would do well to increase the potential pool of readers, not shrink it with continued partisanship.

To save themselves, and preserve what remains of the critical Fourth Estate role they play, newspapers should ditch opinions altogether and focus on what truly sets them apart in their markets – solid local reporting, news analysis and in-depth investigations. Focus on quality. Cover local news, business, arts and sports better than anyone.

But that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?

Related posts:

  1. How Big An Obstacle Is The Star Tribune’s Paywall?
  2. Media With An Axe To Grind
  3. The End Of Newspapers Is Closer Than You Think
  4. Newspapers Are Still Dead
  5. Ducks And Coverage
Buffer

Other posts by

  • Bob Ingrassia

    So I shared this link on Facebook, saying “I’m not entirely certain I agree with this” and Jorg challenged me to post a rebuttal here. Briefly: Editorials aren’t very expensive to produce. Newspapers already have gutted the editorial/opinion staffs, so even if they eliminated staff editorials entirely, they wouldn’t gain many resources to throw at news. Also, although I agree a paper like the Strib has probably lost some affluent/conservative subscribers because of its left-leaning editorial board, I would argue that the fundamental shifts in how we get our news (internet, cable, mobile, etc.) and our commercial info (Google, Craigslist, Monster, Cars.com, etc.) have eroded far more of traditional media’s business than partisan editorial boards. So it seems to me that editorials and opinion pieces should still be part of a distinct and valuable mix of content that newspapers can offer (and sell). Side point: The opinions from editorial boards, op/ed writers and columnists should be well written, provocative, witty and/or unorthodox. It’s the bland, tepid stuff that’s worthless … and, unfortunately, that’s what we see too much of from traditional/corporate media outlets.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bradleyfikes Bradley J. Fikes

      Editorials cost time to produce and vet, and time is an increasingly scarce newsroom resource. Editors can spend that time more productively by helping reporters develop stories rather than opining about them.

  • Erasrhedd

    Heaven help us if the only source of opinion comes from the headlines of the new media who don’t offer opinion as much as they offer propaganda.
    In a perfect world, readers would sop up viewpoints on any given national topic from all the many, many sources available, and draw their own conclusions, but that isn’t going to happen.
    The fact is, the Huffingtons, Foxes, MSNBCs, etc., don’t offer opinion on local issues and that is the strength of the local newspaper. The new media could care less about the value of widening U.S. 41 through town, or who should be elected to the City Council or any of the many important local issues that readers care about. And, it is these topics that make up the vast majority of issues upon which newspapers opine.
    I’m very lucky in that my local newspaper has an excellent editorial board that is not afraid to offer hard-hitting, informative and well-written opinion.
    The journalism, unfortunately, sucks. The rest of the paper is poorly written, I see no evidence of editing and there is obviously no proofing of the paper. And, it is actually thriving, at least compared to most other newspapers around the country.
    The new century has been horrible for the industry. Many billions in lost advertising revenue, lost circulation, massive layoffs and, often, lost vision of purpose (I know, it’s to make money).
    But I’m not aware of a single newspaper that failed or suffered long term because of an opinion it rendered.
    The argument that newspapers shouldn’t offer timely opinion on important community issues because an advertiser might object or readers may revolt MAKES it imperative that newspapers continue to speak out, for who else will?
    Stick to your guns, Bob.

  • Sweetmagnolia

    Jorg,
    Thank you for sharing YOUR  ”opinion”.  Freedom of Speech still exhists, and the where, when. and why is not determined by YOU. SURPRISE!!

    • Anonymous

      I appreciate the comment, but I’m not sure I understand it. Can you elaborate? 

      • Sweetmagnolia

        I’m in awe…. You do not understand Freedom of Speech and what that right involves and includes. I’m sorry,my communication can not possibly be more clear or simple. I suggest you research Freedom of Speech,human rights,and brush up on American History and laws. Perhaps then you will become more enlightened and enhanced with more understanding. In the meantime Jorg…best of luck with your opinions and making a positive difference in the world.. 

        • Anonymous

          Sweetmagnolia – I had hoped it was clear that I am trying to explore ways to save daily newspapers, rather than trying to squash dissenting viewpoints.   In fact, if this very discussion isn’t a celebration of Freedom of Speech, then I don’t know what is … 

  • Pingback: My Opinion on Opinion « Taking Aim

  • Scott Gillespie

    Jorg,
    You refer to “a newspaper’s shrinking reader base.” That’s just flat out wrong. Our “reader base” has never been larger, if you allow us to add print and digital numbers. (I would think that you would recognize that digital readership counts for something.) I acknowledge that much of the growth is in free web readership, but that’s likely to change as well. My “self-interest” is in quality journalism, including opinion journalism, as well as constructive civil discourse. Thanks for the chance to respond.
    Scott Gillespie, editorial page editor, Star Tribune

    • Anonymous

      Scott:  The readership discussion is interesting. I’d argue the larger-than-ever reader base you cite is largely the result of easier, and cheaper, access to your content among the percentage people who still view the Strib as relevant. It’s still a big number, but without bold moves, I’m not confident most daily papers can grow their readership much bigger than it is today. And there’s still the big question of how to translate that kind of readership into the profit margins newspapers once enjoyed.  

      I’m simply making the point that in this new competitive media environment, relevance is more critical than ever to the survival of daily newspapers.  On this we agree:  the goal is to preserve quality journalism.  To that end, I’m hoping all ideas are on the table. 

      I truly appreciate your perspective and the time you took to weigh in.

  • Scott Gillespie

    Jorg –

    Your provocative but incredibly weak argument on the value
    newspaper opinion sections failed to address a number of key questions, most
    notably whether people are reading them. In the case of the Star Tribune, where
    recent readership surveys have shown strong and growing audiences for our print
    and digital opinion content, the answer is clear. You opine that opinion pages
    are “good for civic discourse” but “bad for business.” Your business case,
    apparently, is based on the perception of this and other newspapers as having a
    liberal slant. You fail to offer any evidence that without that perception our
    business model would be strengthened. Would subscription orders skyrocket for a
    blander, less interesting newspaper after it gave up what was “good for civic
    discourse”?  Would more advertisers – presumably, using your thinking,
    newly supportive conservative advertisers – line up at the door with checkbooks
    in hand? Seems a stretch, but feel free to offer any factual information on
    gains made by any of the newspapers that have either cut back opinion content
    in recent years. You might start in Atlanta or even St. Paul.

    I had some of the same doubts about the relevance of opinion
    pages that you have when I moved down the hall from our Newsroom almost four
    years ago. And then I started answering the phone, talking to readers and
    opinion leaders from around the state who were more engaged in our opinion
    pages and website than I could have imagined before sitting in this chair. And
    then the calendar filled up with Editorial Board meetings with U.S. senators,
    mayors, CEOs, nonprofit leaders , special interest group representatives (some
    of them conservative, too, by the way) – all of whom wanted our ear and our
    support because it carries more weight and reaches a much larger audience than
    a Facebook post or a tweet lost in the flood. When they weren’t meeting with
    us, they were filling our inboxes with commentaries and letters they
    desperately wanted published in the Star Tribune because of what that means –
    exposure to by far the largest media audience in the state and region. And they
    were talking with our editorial staff members, who do the kind of reporting you
    seem to value so that we can offer what’s most needed today – smart and
    informed opinions.

    No, Jorg, you’re dead wrong about opinion journalism, as
    were the many headline seekers who beat you to your tired argument over the
    past decade or so.  Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal see
    the light and, fortunately, so does the Star Tribune.  Today’s journalism
    is a battle for relevance and readership, and thoughtful, important opinion
    page content is helping us win that race.

    Scott Gillespie, editorial page editor, Star Tribune

     

    • Anonymous

      Good to have your perspective, Scott.  I’m not at all surprised that you would make an impassioned case for the status quo. My dad often says: “If you want to know if you need a haircut, don’t ask the barber.”  I’m not dismissing your perspective, but before you call my arguments weak, I would love to have you acknowledge there’s an element of self-interest in your defense of the status quo.

      I’m not saying people don’t read the Star Tribune opinion page.  I’m also not saying its not still influential. I’m simply saying that in this new era of competition and partisanship, the opinion page is a barrier to broadening a newspaper’s shrinking reader base. To counter my argument, you cite reader surveys that indicate the value of your opinion pages.  I’d be more interested in what your non-reader surveys say about that topic. 

      Let’s also take your argument about the New York Times and WSJ “seeing the light.”  NYT tried putting Opinion writers behind a pay wall.  Didn’t go so well.   The Wall Street Journal has everything behind the pay wall.  Seems to be going swimmingly. That’s because no matter how thoughtful and well-written, in this digital era, opinion has become a commodity, and a polarizing one at that.  Good reporting is not.

      This very discussion, both where the original opinion lives, here on the Idea Peepshow, and how you learned about it, likely through social media or Romenesko’s blog, only bolsters my point. 

      Until a daily newspaper entirely eliminates opinion, we won’t know the effect.  I fully acknowledge that would be a risk.  But I’m guessing at most daily newspapers around the country, the safer options for increasing readership have all been tried.  I’m just saying it might be time for bolder action.

    • http://www.michaelkeliher.com mjkeliher

      “…all of whom wanted our ear and our support because it carries more weight and reaches a much larger audience than a Facebook post or a tweet lost in the flood.”

      Any single Facebook or Twitter post — most of them, in fact — can and do “get lost in the flood.” But the power of those communication platforms is that any post, from any person, on any topic — many of them, in fact — can and do quickly spark a wildfire that spreads at least as far as an idea put forth in a newspaper’s opinion pages or a televised commentary. 

      Perhaps that wildfire is a small one that burns through a community wrestling with an irresponsible city council member or perhaps its a giant one that scortches the whole country  as it works to decide who’ll be its next president. The point is, ideas that warrant little attention generally get lost, and those that warrant more generally get more. Survival of the most compelling.

      Leaving aside the rest of this fascinating discussion about the civic and business value of a newspaper’s opinion section, I wanted to make this important clarification. Too often people mention, perhaps off-handedly with no intent to belittle, this drop-in-the-ocean nature of social media. They’re leaving out the part about how every tidal wave is made of little drops of water.

      Thanks for taking the time to weigh in, Scott. It’s much appreciated.

      Mike Keliher
      Fast Horse

      • John from Minneapolis

        That Keliher is a smart kid. I’ve always said so.

  • Pingback: PR man: ‘Newspapers should get out of the opinion business’ | Astrid Bidanec

  • Pingback: Editors: PR man wrong about newspapers and opinions | Astrid Bidanec

  • Pingback: Newspapers Should Stay in the Opinion Business – Radio, TV Stations, and Networks, Too — Media Curmudgeon

  • Pingback: Newspapers Should Stay in the Opinion Business – Radio, TV Stations, and Networks, Too