I was recently asked if I would consider writing a column for a newspaper. My initial reaction was “why would anyone care what I have to say?” This got me thinking about columns and columnists. I noted a column in the Asheville Citizen-Times recently by a familiar columnist. I say familiar, but I don’t know her personally and know little about her background. What I do know is unsettling.

One of her pieces was in the same paper some time back. She included several quotations in that column to add credibility and support for her position and reasoning. I downloaded the reports that she cited and was somewhat taken back by the revelation. They had been quoted out of context. In fact, if you read all of the material that she mentioned and cited, you get a totally different perspective than the one she put forth. In any case, this raises the question of how columnists are selected by the various newspapers and why.

Columnists come into our homes through our local newspapers and other publications, and tell us their opinions and what they believe - and de facto, what we should believe as well. But, as a rule, we know little about these writers or their backgrounds. As an exercise, write down the names of the columnists that appear in the various newspapers that you read over the course of a week. Then, go back and write down what you know about each one of these writers. Exactly who are these people? Their credibility is gleaned from the newspapers and publications that bring them into your home, rather than their recognized expertise on the matters that they write about. They are afforded a “bully pulpit,” but why? Why are their views so important? In a lot of ways, it is like having a complete stranger come over to you and begin to share their opinions. If that occurred you probably would ask (or think) “who are you?”

Do we really know any more about those people that provide you with opinions in your newspapers? I wonder if readers gravitate toward columnists that they tend to agree with, or if they try to read a broad cross-section to expand their own frame of thought? My guess would be more of the former, but even if it is the latter, does that really give you a broader viewpoint and frame of reference?

An editorial page editor told me that their paper strives for a balanced viewpoint, thus they attempt to balance out the number of conservative and liberal columnists. I recognize that columnists are putting forth opinions, but what is wrong with a columnist just taking on an issue and following it to wherever it leads and to whatever conclusion? If their views and opinions are not supported by well grounded, thorough research and documentation, then what good is it? As Tom Watson, Sr. stated: “If these are visceral decisions, I would prefer to use my viscera.” Thus, if these are just opinions and nothing more, then the reader’s opinion is just as good as theirs. Why must there be conservative or liberal viewpoints? By and large, if you are familiar with the writings of a particular columnist and the subject of the column, you can accurately project where the columnist’s viewpoint will be on the subject without reading the column.

Columnists, of course, also have deadlines. They have to write something whether or not they are inspired. It is rather striking how many columnists draft their ideas off of well circulated stories that are well worn and have already had gallons of ink written on them. If they added some new perspective or dimension, that is one thing; however, in most cases there is nothing new presented. Perhaps they are just weighing in on the subject to generate a subscription to their views and perspectives among their readers. Some columnists write about pending legislation, research reports, etc. without actually even reading the documents themselves. They don’t actually read the materials they are forming an opinion on, but only use press releases, summaries and items already in the news.

A local columnist wrote in support for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, but by the content of the column, it appeared as though he had not read the bill. There have been a lot of articles, columns and editorials on this subject and there will be more. I wondered why this columnist decided that this should be the subject to write on for the local area readers, as there were thousands of such columns, articles, and editorials already in circulation on this topic. There was nothing new offered in his. He cited a couple of examples in support of his position (none with a local connection), but unfortunately none of those elections cited, and their underlying financing, would haven been affected by this proposed federal legislation. The proposed legislation was not applicable to these situations. Thus, the examples sounded like reasoned support, but they really weren’t relevant to the issue at hand.

In that vein, there have been frequent situations where the staff of newspapers have written columns, and even editorials, relating to research reports that they haven’t actually read. They rely instead on the executive summaries and press releases by the organization authoring the report. It appears that as a service to the community, the writer should actually read the reports and consider these issues in the course of expressing a thoughtful, balanced opinion. Perhaps they would actually come up with a different opinion. What about seeking out counter viewpoints to the studies? They say they just don’t have time.This is rather scary to me — to contact someone who wrote a column or editorial expressing an opinion on a study just to learn they hadn’t actually read it and had not sought any counter viewpoints before taking a position on it. Perhaps the columns are presented just to make us think about the issue. But the columnists don’t want you to actually think about the issue.

In reading a column you should also consider the traps to decision making, as they are at work here. They are designed to hinder your thought processes and to lead you towards their conclusion. A common one is the “conjunctive rule.” That is where the writer makes a point or reaches a seemingly logical conclusion, but where they have framed the issue of discussion and provided the reader with all the points of consideration. This is a routine methodology in advertising. As an example: “There are more than two dozen companies in the Charlotte area which offer training in computer programming.” The announcer puts some two dozen eggs and one walnut on the table to represent the alternatives, and continues: “Let us examine the facts. How many of these schools have on-line computer facilities for training?” The announcer removes several eggs. “How many of these schools have placement services that would help you find a job?” The announcer removes some more eggs. “How many of these schools are approved for Veterans’ Benefits?” This continues until the walnut alone remains. The announcer cracks the walnut, and reveals the name of the company and concludes: “This is all you need to know in a nutshell.”

What they didn’t address, of course, is essential information such as the time required to complete the program, the cost, the quality, accreditation, types of job graduates placed and success of placement, starting salaries of graduates, etc. Also, VA benefits will not be applicable to most applicants (they are using it as a sly way to convey accreditation, quality). So, what is a similar example in a column or editorial? Several in the Citizen-Times on the proposed missile defense system come to mind. They identified and addressed: the expense (and the fact that no one knows what it will actually cost); the fact the technology is not currently available; there have been failures in the early tests; it will violate the ABM Treaty with Russia; it will perhaps initiate an arms race with the Chinese; etc. All in all, it made for a convincing argument against a missile defense system. It leads the reader to a logical conclusion. The one thing that none of these addressed was: “is it needed” (what is the extent of the threats)? Isn’t that the crux of the matter? If the threats are real and dire, then the cost and the technology would be details, would they not? A thermonuclear strike, to say, New York City, would kill millions, result in a collapse of our financial systems, generate chaos, make our forward military units ineffective and in one swoop change the balance of military power in the world. So, you would think this basic question would be getting center stage. It seems that you would want to know who has these capabilities and who can readily obtain them. There was absolutely no mention or refutation of the various reports, including the bipartisan Rumsfeld report on such threats. I asked one writer if he had read the declassified parts of the Rumsfeld Report, and he was silent. He wasn’t even aware of it. What is also scary is that a lot of columns and editorials on such subject matter are being written by people who have probably less familiarity with the subject than you do. They certainly don’t possess any expertise. So, why are they opining on such issues? Perhaps they read a convincing piece by someone else, similar to the type they are going to write for you.

Also, the writers don’t provide you with the counter arguments to their points (such as cost, lack of technology, etc., in this example). You have to find them on your own. That is also an element of the “conjunctive rule.” They make a convincing argument that appears “complete” but is one-sided. I hasten to say that I am not getting in the mix on missile defense, only providing an example of the “conjunctive rule” in columns and editorials. Other examples are prevalent throughout; they are easily found on a daily basis if you look for them.

So, read defensively. Use columns and editorials as an exercise, similar to a crossword puzzle. Start listing those things the writer does not include in the column or editorial that may be relevant to the issue. You will note they typically only include those things that support their position and conclusion and rarely provide counter arguments to their key points. They explain this by citing “word count limitations.” Often they leave out the most fundamental issues and questions on purpose (“Is it needed?”) because it weakens their argument. They are attempting to control your decision-making process. So ask yourself what are the underlying, fundamental issues to this matter, and are they articulated in the column or editorial? They are only going to include things that support their position, and when you read it in such a context, it sounds reasonable. It is their art. Often there is little difference between these columns and opinions and the techniques found on Madison Avenue.

Consider requesting the newspaper(s) that you read to publish a bio on each of the regular columnists that will appear in that year and why the paper selected them to be represented in the paper and thus brought them into your home. Also, consider urging the papers to include an opposing viewpoint to the editorial on the same day, rather than relegating opposing views to letters to the editor and the op-ed page some time after the original piece was published. Ideally, for key issues of interest and impact, multiple viewpoints should be presented together, based on sound research, interviews and thought, instead of opinion columns. Also, why do there always have to be opinions and conclusions? There is a lot said by just asking thoughtful and thought provoking questions for the readership to ponder. Posing good questions speaks volumes.

Under the present approach, as Noam Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent) has articulated, the more we read, the dumber and less informed we actually become. Think about it; because that is what columns should be about - getting the reader to think, even if the writer is trying diligently to keep you from doing so.

(Shelton lives in Maggie Valley and can be reached at lee@ensync.com)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News