Bill Dennis who hates the PJS, is again lambasting them about unsigned editorials. A former person there is questioning why he hates the paper so much. Interesting debate. Love the blogging community. Never a dull moment.
May 15, 2008...5:16 pm
Cool debate
Jump to Comments
35 Comments
May 15, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I don’t hate the PJS. I hate what’s happened to the PJS. I don’t like unsigned editorials because they are arrogant. The idea that two people (in this case) sitting in a room can write something that is the opinion of the entire news news organization is silly. The fact that no one knows who wrote it, why they wrote it, whether or not their bosses TOLD them to write is the opposite of transparancy, which is something that savy news consumers demand. Editorials are written by PEOPLE, not institutions. PEOPLE have biases and blatant agendas. Therefore, I cannot take unsigned editorials any more seriously than an anonymous commenter.
May 16, 2008 at 3:43 am
It is interesting that PJS requires a name and email for anyone to comment on their site but doesn’t require any identification of those whom they actually print in the paper?
May 16, 2008 at 9:56 am
Bill,
Doesn’t every newspaper in almost every market do it this way? I find it a bit ironic you go after the Journal’s unsigned editorials when just about every newspaper around does it this way (and has been since God only knows when..duh!) Why no criticism directed at the Trib? Post-Dispatch? etc. etc.
Why don’t you ever point that out???????
May 16, 2008 at 4:21 pm
It’s not the Journal Star.
May 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Huh?: Maybe because the name of the blog is “PEORIA Pundit,” not “Every Other City with a Daily Newspaper Pundit.”
May 16, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Be the first. Start a trend.
May 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I barely have to time to be a Peoria pundit.
May 16, 2008 at 10:29 pm
This isn’t about the name of your blog or your own little niche of cyberspace. This is about an issue you like to bring up. The industry standard seems to be consistent with newspapers throughout the country. Editorials are that of the editorial page and are often unsigned. There are far bigger tragedies in this world. But you continue to focus on one news organization that simply does the same thing the entire industry does. So what exactly are they doing so wrong? Nothing.
If you are going to criticize or be a “pundit” then you really ought to know the basics about the industry first.
May 17, 2008 at 4:29 am
Gotta love that logic … they are all doing it so it must be OK. That logic condones a lot of bad behavior. I figure if you have the balls to say it, sign it.
May 17, 2008 at 8:37 am
Michael, maybe so but the fact is that this isn’t new and that Bill attacking the PJS, which is okay in and of itself, is a bit odd given that he has a journalism background and knows editorials aren’t signed.
Attack them for their content. Fine. But to attack them for not signing their name when that hasn’t been done for decades and singling out one small town newspaper is a bit odd.
May 17, 2008 at 10:22 am
Coming from newspapers, I saw how they work from the inside. I came away convinced that many of the conventions of newspapers — unsigned editorials, nominal “objectivity — were designed to serve the interest of newspaper owners and not the readers.
I have written posts that criticize the unsigned editorial in general.
I complain about the Journal Star editorial board because they:
1. Follow the old model of unsigned editorials, which I oppose because if lacks transparency and inherently dishonest.
2. The Journal Star often runs editorials that contain inaccurate and misleading information, and make unfounded accusations against candidates that the newspapers bosses don’t want to see elected.
May 17, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Inaccurate to you. I dare say they would contend some of what you write is false as well. That’s the problem with all people who claim to know the truth which can the same facts viewed in different ways.
May 17, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Bill, editorials are what they are: opinions. You just said it…and you don’t agree with it. Maybe some people don’t agree with your opinions. It’s just the way life is. Your rants about the JS’s unsigned editorials are laughable because, yes Michael, everyone does it. It’s a common industry standard. Has been for generations. It doesn’t take an insider to realize that. And like what has been posted many times over on your site (by people who seem to be obviously more in the know than any random onliner) there are only 2 people in the Peoria editorial staff.
Also, I hope you understand that I’m sure the news industry isn’t going to shake themselves up because of your lonely opinion. But rant on …
I’m starting to think there needs to be “watchdogs” for some of the bloogers online. Seriously.
May 17, 2008 at 4:07 pm
First: since there are only 2 members of the JSEB, why not have one of them sign?
Second: the newspapers higher-ups also have a role in determining the paper’s editorial stances. Which edits are those in which the paper’s “official” opinion” came down from above.
Third: My commenters are my watchdogs. As are other bloggers. You can start one yourself with a few easy mouse clicks.
May 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I can’t believe you really believe this. Fine, Let’s assume that the two people in question, Mike Bailey and Christine Smith, who are listed on the newspaper, are taking orders from Gatehouse. So what? Let’s assume the company really cares about what happens here in Peoria. So what. Signing their name isn’t going to mean a thing. And what if, by some chance, they work together on the piece. Do they sign both of their names? So every piece would have their names signed to the bottom of them. Super, it still wouldn’t tell you anything more.
Lastly, their names are signed to the pieces, in the box above the editorial page which states they are the only two writers who do that. I just don’t get your raving other than you like to pick on the PJS.
May 17, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Of course, unsigned editorials are the usual standard. And certainly Gatehouse will be giving direction come Election Day. The idea was that the editorial was the view of the whole newspaper–which, of course, if the staff was polled, it is not. Longtime readers know that all the light-hearted gripes about the weather are Bailey’s work. The page misses Shelley Epstein, and who knows who will go in the next early-out scheme.
May 17, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I am baffled at how so many newspaper people simply don’t get it. They wpdn all day trying to shine light on hidden things, yet defend the secrecy of the unsigned editorial as “well, everyone does it.” A stunning lack of introspection.
No, Al, not talking about you.
May 17, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I think those newspaper people are saying, look, you know who writes them. Saying they are unsigned and griping about nothing more than that is a waste of time. It’s Bailey and Smith. There. The world knows. Read the top of the paper on the editorial page and it tells you who is in charge.
May 18, 2008 at 12:33 am
I know who is on the edit board. I DON’T know who writes any one specific editorial. If it’s ONE of TWO, then why not just say WHO it is. Why perpetrate this fiction that the editorial that appears today is the opinion of the entire institution? It’s a fiction designed to give weight to whoever happened to win the day at an edit board meeting.
It’s like some wrinkled old crone insisting she’s still 39,
May 18, 2008 at 10:51 am
[...] This post will give Subway Conductor something new to carp [...]
May 18, 2008 at 12:56 pm
You don’t get it. That’s cool. I think most people realize that by now.
Just like the unsigned editorials, please name me a series of respectable newspapers that are online giving away all of their archives. I believe, for the most part, most sites charge. I don’t think I’m off base here. Again, an industry standard. Why should the Journal or any other publication begin giving all of their stuff away? If you are doing research online, and really REALLY need an article from 1998, then you should have to pay $1 or $2 for it. Whatever they charge. What’s the big deal?
Isn’t most of the conversations on your site just flat out complaining or … a step below that … carping?
May 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm
So, Subway Conducter, its becoming clear that you likely work at the PJS, but might your initials happen to be MB
Personally, I don’t care whether the editorials are signed or not. The more relevant issue is that their facts are accurate and the editors are immersed in the community and have their fingers squarely on the pulse of it.
Most of the editorials I read from the PJStar seem to be spot-on… that’s just my ‘pinion for what its worth.
May 18, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Umm, memo to the person posting as “Huh” , “No”, “No kidding”, and “carping about”, I think that’s the field where your supposed to put your name.
May 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Really … I am enjoying this debate.
Just because that’s THE WAY IT’S DONE doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be done.
This of it this way: Name me ONE benefit to the reader for there to be unsigned editorials. Just one. How does it help the reader to be kept in the dark as the the identity of the person who writes any one editorial or the process that was followed to create the editorial.
May 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Or is the debate here a little less cool now that I’m winning.
May 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm
When someone calls themselves the winner of something subjective — especially a debate —well, one is to be taken with a grain of salt. But hey, its the Internet and a superstar is born every minute on here.
Bill, I just think you are the one and only person in the entire world who loses sleep over signed/unsigned editorials. It’s not a big deal. Really.
May 18, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I think it’s all he’s got….:)~
May 18, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Besides, it doesn’t appear he would have much of a blog WITHOUT the PJStar. PJStar snippet + snarky comment = blog.
May 19, 2008 at 12:04 am
G-ma: Again, it’s blog ABOUT Peoria media and politics. Hence, the oft-mentioned PJS.
May 19, 2008 at 3:58 am
My personal take on this whole thing is about integrity. I don’t like the whole hiding behind anonymity thing we are escalating in this country. Unnamed sources, odd avatars, and tags often allow for the possibility of more exaggeration and downright hostility than would be the case if you had to put your own name on the line every time you opened your mouth or penned an opinion. I know … I have eaten my share of crow which I would otherwise have avoided by being “Grumpy” or some other anonymous moniker. I am wary of the continued increase in people wanting their voice heard but not connected to them.
May 19, 2008 at 8:01 am
Very well said, Michael.
May 19, 2008 at 11:54 am
But what I still don’t get is why it matters so much. Their names are at the top of the page. All editorials are written by those two. They are signed. If this were a panel of five people, okay but it’s two and they probably work together. I don’t know really how it works.
May 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I tend to agree with SC. The Journal Star is the Journal Star. I wouldn’t even recognize the names of the editors if I saw them. You figure they speak for the institution just like if CAT or Ford put out some kind of position statement.
May 21, 2008 at 11:46 am
[...] This post will give Subway Conductor something new to carp [...]
June 4, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Good post!