unsigned newspaper editorials

[Moonlight Graham]

I can't stand unsigned newspaper editorials. You know what i'm talking about, the opinion articles in a newspaper that supposedly represent the views of the editorial staff, or more generally the newspaper itself.

Being unsigned, i find them deceiving and usually don't even bother reading them. Is the article the opinion of all the senior editors in agreement? Is this the opinion of the editor-in-chief himself/herself pushing their views under the umbrella of the whole editorial staff/paper? Is this just the opinion of 2 or 3 editors? Or the opinion pushed by the publisher/owner of the paper, with nothing to do with the individual editorial staffers?

It's almost impossible to know the power structure/politics going on among any given editorial staff. I find it hard to believe all members of an editorial staff would all agree on the controversial issues looked at in most editorials.

Even more laughable are when newspapers endorse political candidates/parties during an election. What does that even mean??? Exactly who supports them? Again, is it the publisher/owner? Editor-in-chief? A combo of some editors and not others? And why should i even care?

Conclusion: IMO, if you're going to write an opinion piece, especially one that uses words like "we think", the authors should sign their individual names instead of hiding behind the "powerful" banner of the entire newspaper.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[August1991]

I agree.

This is common practice in Anglophone countries but not elsewhere. I don't know why. Editorials in Le Devoir, for example, are signed by the author and hence it is possible to understand better how the editorial board of the newspaper thinks. I recall in the 1980 referendum, each of the four editorialists signed off on the same day (3 in favour of the Yes, 1 in favour of the No - Michel Roy).

[M.Dancer]

I find it hard to believe all members of an editorial staff would all agree on the controversial issues looked at in most editorials.

They don't. They have no reason to agree or not agree....most of the editorial staff have nothing to do with the editorials...or even what stories they themselves cover.

In large papers the editorials are written individually by the editiorial team, made up of 3 or more senior editors, each of whom writes about one or two subjects exclusively, whether it is politics, international affairs or social issues. They ezch submit their own editorial and one will be selected by the managing editor to run on a particular day.

[GostHacked]

It's a disturbing trend that has been going on for a long time. It needs to stop. Articles by 'anonymous' get published, which can influence people to think a certain way. If they really believe in what they are writing they would put their name on it.

[Shakeyhands]

I'd agree on this one. I noticed the Star does this, and I wonder who writes them.

[Mr.Canada]

It would be nice to be able to hold a person accountable for their words. Some would rather hide behind anonymity instead of being challenged for their words.

[Bonam]

While I could be swayed either way on this issue, I'm not sure I agree with the rest of the posters above. Why can an article not stand and be judged on the merits of its content, rather than people's ideas about the writer? There are many controversial statements that one might make when one has the benefit of anonymity, which one might not make if one is forced to append one's name to the article. Society can benefit from a greater freedom and range of discussion, and allowing anonymous statements certainly enables that.

[Moonlight Graham]

While I could be swayed either way on this issue, I'm not sure I agree with the rest of the posters above. Why can an article not stand and be judged on the merits of its content, rather than people's ideas about the writer? There are many controversial statements that one might make when one has the benefit of anonymity, which one might not make if one is forced to append one's name to the article. Society can benefit from a greater freedom and range of discussion, and allowing anonymous statements certainly enables that.

I have no problem with an opinion writer, author of a letter to an editor, or of course an internet forum participant maintaining anonymity. It doesn't make an argument weaker or stronger based on if it's signed or not by an identifiable person.

However, unsigned newspaper editorials are different. An editorial presents its views as if it's backed by the editorial team, or even backed by the newspaper as a whole. It's using the "prestige" of the newspaper itself to give its argument more credibility, when in fact nobody knows who's writing this opinion or who exactly within the paper's staff it represents. IE: in the Ottawa Citizen, an editorial will usually appear under the heading "Our Views". Who is "our"?

[M.Dancer]

An editorial presents its views as if it's backed by the editorial team, or even backed by the newspaper as a whole.

That is correct. That is the case and that is the main reason they are unsigned.

Why again do you have a problem with newspapers taking positions?

[Moonlight Graham]

Why again do you have a problem with newspapers taking positions?

Because newspapers can't take positions. Only people can.

I was lonely one day, so i dug that day's newspaper out of the recycling bin and asked for it's opinion on the current recession. For some reason it didn't respond, so i threw it back in the trash.

[M.Dancer]

Because newspapers can't take positions. Only people can.

Of course newspapers can take positions. Your logic is flawed....newspaper editorial boards are made up of people and they represent the the paper. The only issue that can be argued is whether the position of the paper begins to influence the content of the news. For the most part, positions remain on the editorial and Op ed pages.

"Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one." -

In North America, the editorial page and op-ed pages are there to articulate positions, and the editorial go back to the days when the paper articulated the position of the publisher.

[eyeball]

"Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one." -

In these horizontally integrated times the owner of a paper often owns several other papers along with other media outlets which together can act like an echo chamber so the position of a conglomerate can begin to influence the tone of the times.

In any case I buy far fewer newspapers and magazines than I used to and use the Internet for much of my news now. I often find myself searching out author's bio's when looking for background information on some of the stories I follow. I'm pretty sure I don't do this just because I can. My scepticism, doubt and incredulity seems to be triggered by exposure to anonymously mass produced opinions.

Edited March 10, 2011 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

In these horizontally integrated times the owner of a paper often owns several other papers along with other media outlets which together can act like an echo chamber so the position of a conglomerate can begin to influence the tone of the times.

In any case I buy far fewer newspapers and magazines than I used to and use the Internet for much of my news now. I often find myself searching out author's bio's when looking for background information on some of the stories I follow. I'm pretty sure I don't do this just because I can. My scepticism, doubt and incredulity seems to be triggered by exposure to anonymously mass produced opinions.

It also extends into televised media as well. As well as the Internet. Part of the reason why alernative media is on the rise.

[August1991]

However, unsigned newspaper editorials are different. An editorial presents its views as if it's backed by the editorial team, or even backed by the newspaper as a whole. It's using the "prestige" of the newspaper itself to give its argument more credibility, when in fact nobody knows who's writing this opinion or who exactly within the paper's staff it represents. IE: in the Ottawa Citizen, an editorial will usually appear under the heading "Our Views". Who is "our"?

To be honest, I have never understood this Anglo-Saxon practice of unsigned editorial opinions. I prefer the French method to identify who thinks what.

It is like a Supreme Court decision. There are signed dissenting opinions.

But then, I have never truly understood the English common law either.

Edited March 11, 2011 by August1991

[SF/PF]

While I could be swayed either way on this issue, I'm not sure I agree with the rest of the posters above. Why can an article not stand and be judged on the merits of its content, rather than people's ideas about the writer? There are many controversial statements that one might make when one has the benefit of anonymity, which one might not make if one is forced to append one's name to the article. Society can benefit from a greater freedom and range of discussion, and allowing anonymous statements certainly enables that.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, unsigned editorials often leave me feeling a little annoyed and unfulfilled. But do I think that there is some truth that anonymity may expand the discussion to some degree.

That said, I usually find the unsigned editorials to be far inferior to signed editorials. In the non-anonymous editorials, the author usually tries to some use some sort of argument or provide some facts or data to back up their claims.

Unsigned editorials tend to be mere collections of assertions and talking points, with no attempt at argumentation or fact finding.

[August1991]

That said, I usually find the unsigned editorials to be far inferior to signed editorials. In the non-anonymous editorials, the author usually tries to some use some sort of argument or provide some facts or data to back up their claims.

Unsigned editorials tend to be mere collections of assertions and talking points, with no attempt at argumentation or fact finding.

Maybe. But then, our posts here are unsigned too.

In Quebec, there was a Frere Untel. Much later, I once met him. He was a Catholic priest, an ordinary guy, a decent person. He wrote when Duplessis was PM, and he used a pseudonymn.

I reckon that I use a pseudonym here on this forum simply because I have a day job. But I can appreciate Frere Untel's point. It is liberating to say what you think without having anyone question who you are. (Yes, he was a Brother. But he was an anonymous brother.)

In the case of Anglophone newspaper editorials, I don't understand this practice. Their day job is editor. And they're not monks.

-----

Here's a suggestion for a WASP newspaper.

Take a local/national controversial subject, let the newspaper editorial board discuss it and then allow each editor write their own editorial. Heck, after review and given time constraints, maybe some will agree that the other's viewpoint is better and add their name to it.

[Oleg Bach]

The bastard lawyers in our modern age refuse to actually sign their own work..They will not put their actual signature on anything these days..No one is accountable - Same as this damned internet pubishing we all do - People lie and hide behind a false title....I identify myself...because _ I _ am responsible for all I do...those that wear a mask are NOT to be listened to...If you want to say something - You had better step out and say it rather than mutter from behind some black curtain like a deviate priest.

[Oleg Bach]

If you don't have the guts to stand up and identify yourself after or before you have spoken your piece...then you should stay quite and shut the F up! Every body is so brave as they speak from behind a curtain...cowards! The net is a newspaper also...a legal document is also a publication...so is an editorial. Also - most documents that have a place for a witness to sign...are left blank - It is all because people have no honour or sense of service or duty...damn it - stand up and be counted...you can't hide like rats forever..besides the cat population has expanded.

[M.Dancer]

Unsigned editorials tend to be mere collections of assertions and talking points, with no attempt at argumentation or fact finding.

cite

[GostHacked]

cite

How can one cite an article with no author? Would that even hold up for you as evidence?

[M.Dancer]

How can one cite an article with no author? Would that even hold up for you as evidence?

I am asking for some back up to this statement.

Unsigned editorials tend to be mere collections of assertions and talking points, with no attempt at argumentation or fact finding.

It is quite broad reaching and is little more than an assertion with no attempt to back it up.

This is today's front page editorial in the G&M.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/canadian-businesses-should-steer-clear-of-kleptocrats/article1949360/

Assertions made with facts to back it up.

[dre]

Id be fine without any editorials, signed or unsigned.

[GostHacked]

Id be fine without any editorials, signed or unsigned.

I agree. We just need the facts and we will figure it out for ourselves.

[bloodyminded]

Id be fine without any editorials, signed or unsigned.

I'd never really thought about it. But when a banal piece of tripe like "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" is a classic of the genre, you might be on to something.

[Oleg Bach]

Now with the internet...no one has to sign their name to anything..no one is responsible for what they do or say. Now with hard drive going out of fashion and personal information of all kinds is being moved to a soft ware that is a super system...the powers that be will know everything about everybody...when that happens we will have total dictatorship - without privacy -one can not focus and get things done...without privacy there is no competative evolvement...all will be the same...all will be equal - all will be like bees in a hive...sorry -more like rats in a massive nest...so why bother putting your name to anything...It will just cause power mongers to eventually go looking for you if you are a percived threat...unless you are like me....and not afraid to be recognized - Oleg Alec Bachlow ---------------bring it on! I will sign anything!