Why Do Newspapers Have Opinions?

It's nearly Spring, and in the Spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of: voting in the Primaries.  And so do mine. 

Which brings me to my eternal question come election season: why do newspaper editorial boards try to tell me who to vote for?  Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort.  Come the primaries, the Chronicle editors expend considerable time and effort to recommend a slate of candidates right down the ballot to include the most modest of elected positions.  Then come the regular elections, they will repeat that process.

Television stations don't do this, nor does radio or for that matter the most opinionated of Talking Heads, regardless of medium.  Heck, most of our politicians don't dare to offer a complete slate of candidates to their constituents, partially because of a lack of bandwidth, but mostly because of their rightful fear of appearing to be presumptuous.  Newspapers, uniquely, have no such compunction, and consequently, an opinion on everything.

I wonder if newspapers worry about the appearance of impropriety, especially considering the historic alignment of most with the Democratic Party.  I'm tempted to say no considering the number of stories the most papers run where conservative politicians are fair game solely because they are, well, conservative, whilst Dem pols generally get a Hall Pass.  But on the other hand, no other medium goes to such lengths to structure their content such that hard news, opinion and entertainment are completely segregated.

It's a puzzle.

My personal opinion is that the practice of newspapers offering opinions thrives because it is a centuries-old tradition, which introduces another irony: ask any newspaperman if corporations are "like people", and thus entitled to things like opinions, and you will peg the red line on the scorn-o-meter.  And yet, here we have newspapers - virtually all corporations - who gather unto themselves this privilege as if bestowed by a higher power and immutable for the same reason, the agnostic tendencies of most newspaper editors notwithstanding.

That said, this year, instead of just complaining about the anonymously opinionated ways of newspaper editors, I have a suggestion: Keep those opinions coming, but instead of addressing your readers in the imperial Third Person, as in, "The Chronicle suggests", let every opinion piece have a byline – with multiple entries if necessary.  In a day and age when politicians are required to state "I'm Joe Blow, and I approve this message", where business and advocacy groups are required to reveal their every attempt to influence public opinion, and when Tea Party groups are forced to swear to the political neutrality of family members and friends just to escape the eternal scrutiny of the IRS, it only seems right that the people tasked with giving us the facts and nothing but should be forced to live by the same rules.

Nixon went to China; Gorbachev enacted Perestroika; Clinton dissed Sister Souljah.  My point is, all went against an archetype for the greater public good.  Such a thing must be done by a former true believer in order for it to take.  Somebody in the print community must lead the way: it might as well be my hometown newspaper. 

Pete Smith
Cypress, TX