This column has shaped up as a place to discuss and explore the challenges inherent to the journalist’s mission. In keeping with this trend, it’s high time to discuss opinion writing.
The complication is the editorialist’s very existence; every other journalist strives for objectivity in reporting. The editorialist, in contrast, cannot be objective. An opinion article without an opinion is a body without blood: it doesn’t work.
Unfortunately, this leads to two glaring issues. Foremost is the difficulty in copy editing opinions. The editor of a news story can shift sections around, change words as necessary, rework entire paragraphs. This is fine, because as long as the quotations and their context are maintained, the basic information conveyed is preserved. Unlike in opinions, word choice and style become secondary to delivery of content in editing news.
In editorials, the wording matters. The wording matters very much. Consider the words “terrorist,” “freedom fighter” and “guerilla.” In news writing, the decision regarding which one of these seemingly interchangeable words should be used is governed by context and adherence to journalistic standards. In editorializing, the writer’s words must remain the ones that were originally chosen – they all have different connotations; we don’t like terrorists, but freedom fighters aren’t so bad; guerillas are, linguistically speaking, neutral. Depending on the tone a writer wants to set, he picks a word. But without consistent communication between the writer and the editor, things sometimes get changed for the worse. That in itself is a problem.
The second issue is more subtle: Can and should the writer be a “person” in the article? In news, the writer is left out. Facts are reported, quotations submitted and the writer has no voice in the story. This phenomenon can be demonstrated by merely picking up two different newspapers. Most of the news stories read in a similar style because journalistic constraints preclude much variation in reporting style. In many ways, news writing is an art.
But the editorialist is intrinsically linked to his article from the get-go; we don’t assign opinions, so the choice of topic already reflects a certain mindset. And because the editorial can be considered an extended quotation, we try not to monkey with verbiage, making the article’s slant (and they’re all slanted, or they aren’t opinions) immediately clear.
Muddying the water even more is the tendency for opinions to be born from personal experience. Do we allow the writer to set up a narrative in order to give background to his point of view? Is this journalistically sound?
Well, recently, the trend has been toward affirmation of this style. It started in large part with the genesis of Gonzo journalism through the writings of that erstwhile Rolling Stone writer, Hunter S. Thompson. The trend has been to allow the writer’s voice as well as his experiences to come through in the editorial; it is, after all, his opinion in his own words. Why should his experience not also be included?
In theory, this is fine. In practice, given all the complexities of reporting, writing and copy editing, the whole thing can be a headache. Never fear, though: The Lamron’s writers and editors will always strive to move forward and provide thoughtful, reasoned and appealing opinions to our readers.