Explain Yourself ...

A basic right

Here it is Election Night and I’m doing what I do every Election Night – waiting for the returns to see what the voters have decided.

Lots of things in the news business are repeat stories. That’s why experience counts. Been there, done that, means that the hands aren’t shaking quite so much on the second tornado story as on the first. But there comes a point when you’ve done enough tornadoes and floods and plane crashes.

But I find that I never do enough elections.

Elections are living things – the heart of a democracy. Doesn’t matter whether the office is local or nation or whether the issues are major or minor.

The fact that people get to go to the polls and make changes in their government is a beautiful thing to behold. Early today, there was actually a line at my polling place. It was exciting – but also sad that I considered it so unusual.

But the fact that they could be there and that they were there is a right to be cherished.

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Comments on editorials

I’ve been a user of the Internet since the very early 1990s, and the ’net has become only a tool for me – not a source of entertainment or every amusement. But I’m not a Luddite

I love technology and am what some call an “early adapter.” I had the first good video camera among my circle of friends. And I used to videotape weddings for the daughters and sons of friends as a wedding gift for them. Shame that I never thought it could turn into a business or I’d be writing this from Key West. If at all.

But as with many things, there are also downsides to the Internet, or, more specifically, to the way people use it.

It is a gloriously undisciplined and irreverent place and the people who live there are proudly iconoclastic and independent.

And that can be a problem.

Take letters to the editor. For a letter in response to a column, editorial or another letter to get into the printed newspaper, there is a very careful process followed. (And even then, we still get scammed from time-to-time.) But we’re rigid about demanding the name of the writer, the city or residence and a way we can verify the validity of the letter.

Letters that are in bad taste or make no sense or contain known fact error simply are not published. And those that survive the process carry the name of the writer so the readers know whose opinion they are reading.

But consider the Internet.

A famous cartoon in the early ’90s – I think it was in The New Yorker – showed two mutts at a computer. One is saying to the other something like: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

Net citizens will argue that they are known. cutnshoot@somewhere.com is their Internet name. But you can’t track down that person except with some pretty sophisticated techniques that most of us don’t know. So we don’t know whether cutnshoot is male, female, local, knowledgeable or what. Or if he\she is a dog.

And when no one knows who you are, it’s easier to be more aggressive than is sometimes acceptable in polite company.

All of which brings me to readers’ comments on editorials.

We allow comments on most editorials posted online – we’re slowly learning which ones need to be excepted. But we have no way of controlling the comments before they are posted although we can pull them down – which creates even more controversy from people who think they have the right to say whatever they want about whoever they want whenever they want. They do have that right – they just don’t have it unfettered when the newspaper is involved.

Fort Worth City Councilman Chuck Silcox made some, shall we say, intemperate remarks about one of the candidates recently in the District 9 council race, raising a gay-straight issue. We wrote an editorial about that, suggesting that perhaps he would have been wiser to keep his remarks to himself.

And the wiseguys went to work on the postings. Eventually, they became so extreme that we pulled the comment box and all the comments – both reasonable and unreasonable – off the editorial. It was not censorship. It was a matter of taste.

It’s a shame because the exchange of opinions is important. But there are some things that we will simply not permit to happen in space that is our responsibility, regardless of whether that space is on paper or electrons.

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Elections

Election season is on the way.

This is both an exciting and daunting time for editorial writers. We think it is our duty to interview the candidate and study the issues and give readers our recommendations about how to vote.

Every election season it catches some readers completely by surprise that we do that. When they call to complain and ask when we started telling people how to vote, I say “For all the history of the Star-Telegram.”

We’ll be in days of meetings between now and the start of early voting as we try to determine who we should recommend -- we used to say endorse but we decided that recommend is a better description of what we do – in the coming elections.

One theory of newspapering is that we get to go places and ask questions that readers would go to and ask if they had the opportunity. Despite what some think, we do this without regard to party affiliation. We’ll publish these recommendations prior to early voting – and we’ll also take a look at the 16 constitutional amendments on the ballot.

-- Paul Harral, editor of the editorial page

Words

You may have missed the story about expanding gambling on Kickapoo Indian land in Texas. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with Texas in rejecting a proposal for Las Vegas-style gambling at the Kickapoo’s casino at Eagle Pass on the Texas-Mexico border. It’s one more step in a years’ long fight between Texas and the U.S. Interior Department over regulation of gambling.

But I come not to write about this issue but words. At the center of the dispute is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I don’t know when gambling became gaming, but gaming is the word used repeatedly by pro-gambling interests when they meet with the Star-Telegram’s Editorial Board. Such a minor change – and yet so major. Somewhere, someone who probably makes a lot more per hour than I decided that since so many people object to gambling, perhaps a softer word needs to be used. Thus, gaming.

Some changes in language use make sense. But some are worrisome. When the language becomes too soft, misunderstanding arises and the words become fuzzy if not meaningless.

Many singers change a word in the lyrics of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. It was written “As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” Now it is often sung: “... let us live to make men free.” The argument is that we are not soldiers and the change more properly describes the present day. But it changes the meaning of the phrase and delivers a message much, much weaker than the resolve Julia Ward Howe was describing.

Shakespeare asked: “What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” True, but if we called it something else long enough, say, something distasteful. we’ll forget the meaning of the original word.

-- Paul K. Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

For political wonks ...

Texas is paradise for political junkies.

And one of the most interesting dramas in years is being played out now in Austin with a request for the Attorney General to determine whether the way Speaker Tom Craddick interprets the Texas Constitution is correct. Craddick considers his position as "a state office on par with the office of lieutenant governor." He’s not elected statewide. He’s elected by fellow legislators.

At issue is whether members of the house can remove a Speaker from office during a legislative term and whether it is proper for the Speaker to refuse to recognize members who wish to call for his removal.

While many Texans may yawn at this issue, it’s the kind of thing that puts political junkies into a four-foot hover.

And this is where the Internet becomes invaluable. No newspaper in the state could print all the briefs and arguments that have been filed with the AG’s office. But they can be put online.

And that is what the Star-Telegram has done. You can read until your eyes bleed here. Not only did we collect this stuff, but we offered the link to other newspapers in the state.

So if you love Texas politics, click through and knock yourself out.

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Keeping secrets

Reader Advocate David House has a nice column in the Wednesday paper about the growing move to keep previously available government information secret.

There’s almost always a good reason for doing so – national security, helping people avoid embarrassment, and on and on.

The problem simply is that it is the duty of the people to keep tabs on their government and they can’t do that unless they know what the government is doing. This is an issue that often gets cast as the press versus the government. But reporters are merely stand-ins for the public – going where readers would go and asking the questions they would ask if they had the time to do that.

House lays out the arguments, so I won’t go into that here except to say this: Freedoms and rights are easy to surrender and difficult to regain.

-- Paul K. Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Yes, he does like movies ...

"Does Chris Kelly really like movies?"

We hear that from time to time from film fans who may like a movie that our reviewer doesn't fancy. The reality is that Chris has sharp eyes and a sharp pen. He spots flaws that many of us might miss in films, and he expresses his thoughts incisively and insightfully.

That's a good thing. It doesn't mean that you should agree with him all the time. But it does mean that he'll make you think. It also means that he's giving us information that we can use in making choices about where to spend our money. He may dislike a film but, in reading his review or viewing him on our web site, you realize that what bothers him won't bother you.

OK, I admit, I have some friends who say they use Chris as a counter-indicator. The more he dislikes a film, the more they want to see it. So what will they do with today's review? He likes the new Bourne Ultimatum, he really likes it.

For the record, Chris is smart, funny and does like films. I don't always agree with him. But his insights inform. And I like that.

--Rex Seline

Only war is war

Some years ago, when I was briefly involved in directing training for the news department, I brought copyediting expert Kenn Finkel to town for a series of seminars.

Copy editors — for those of you not in the trade — are the last line of defense in the publication process. They check spelling, grammar, street addresses, telephone numbers, obscure facts and the like. They are what I call a “cold read.” They don’t have any idea what I meant to say, so they are reading it without that knowledge. If they don’t get it, neither will other readers.

You don’t want to play a game like Trivial Pursuit with a copy editor because it is their job to know lots of things. Alan Cochrum, the lead copy editor for the Editorial Writers Department, regularly amazes us with his knowledge. And he regularly keeps us from embarrassment because of it.

The flow works roughly like this, with some variations: A reporter writes a story which is then edited by a supervising editor and perhaps by a second one. In my department, two editors have to sign off on virtually everything. A person charged with designing the page will decide where to put it, but the words go to a copy editor. In larger departments, there's usually a copy chief who signs off on the copy editor’s work.

Finkel met with copy editors from all over the newspaper and the sessions were both interesting and informative. But one thing he said burned in my mind. He was speaking to sports editors when he mentioned “tasteless war references.” An example might writing that a team “took no prisoners” in the course of a game. His point was simple: War is very serious business where people get hurt and killed; Sports are, well, games. They should not be confused with each other.

In April, U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., was a speaker at the Institute for Principled Leadership Tribute to his mentor, Bob Michel, also an Illinois Republican, who is a veteran of World War II.

“Bob taught us by his example that the House Floor should be a forum for reasoned debate among colleagues equal in dignity,” LaHood said in his prepared remarks.

“Bob knew warfare at first hand — not war as it is shown in a movie or war fought in the pages of books, but real war.

“I guess that is the reason he never used macho phrases like ‘warfare’ and ‘take no prisoners’ when discussing politics with his staff,” LaHood said.

“To Bob, the harsh, personal rhetoric of ideological warfare had no place in his heart, in his office, in the House, and no place in American politics.“He knew that the rhetoric we use often shapes the political actions we take.”

Michel is right about that, of course. And so is Finkel. Too bad we all need constant reminding.

-- Paul K. Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Will argue for money

An important part of the process of developing editorial positions for the Star-Telegram is the internal editorial board meeting. It’s from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. at least four days a week and sometimes on Friday as well.

It’s a controlled argument, with people encouraged to challenge each other’s ideas. Direct and open communication is valued and the atmosphere is not particularly politically correct. But you do have to apologize before you leave the room if things get too heated.

We’ve been together so long that in some ways we’re like an old married couple – we can finish each other’s sentences. And some topics are so well defined that we don’t really argue them – we just decide that the news has given us a change to say something we believe strongly one more time.

At the end of the meeting, someone will be picked to execute the board’s opinion on a subject. Some question why we do not put bylines on editorials; there are newspapers that do. The answer is that the writer is reflecting group opinion rather than his or her individual opinions. And sometimes the writer was on the losing end of the discussion.

And then there’s the all-skate. We’ve got a rough idea, someone starts a general editorial on the topic and then everyone adds on to it.

Funny thing about all of this is that many times you walk into that room thinking you believe one thing and leave it after discussion with your colleagues realizing that your opinion has been shifted and your mind changed. Makes a good case for civil discourse, don’t you think?

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page

Anonymous comment

The Star-Telegram Editorial Board is feeling its way into the world of online opinion. It would seem to be a natural evolution, giving that so much of what already exists on the Web is opinion based.

But we are creatures of habit and people who follow guidelines and some of what is considered standard on the Web runs against the grain for us.

For example, anonymous comment.

We don’t sign editorials with a writer’s name because an editorial is considered to be the collective opinion of the Editorial Board and therefore not the work, opinion or property of a single editorial writer. In fact, some editorials will have the fingerprints of almost all board members on them. And it is possible that a writer who disagrees with the consensus of board opinion to be assigned to execute the editorial because he or she is most qualified to write it.

As a result, it’s a little hard for us to demand that people who comment on the editorials be named although unsigned comments make us uncomfortable. If you find that a conflict with the paragraph above, understand that I am always responsible for the opinion printed as is the board collectively -- and our names are in the paper on Sunday so the editorial are technically not anonymous.

But then there are letters.

Our letters guidelines are very strict on identification. We do not print anonymous letters and the letters we do print are verified to the extent of our ability.

At present, we have not opened on-line letters to comment for several reasons, some of them technical. But one of great concern is this -- if we do not permit letter writers to be anonymous, why should we permit those reacting to them online to be anonymous? Shouldn’t the rules be the same?

If you feel strongly about something to write a letter, shouldn’t you have to give your name and city of residence? And shouldn’t that same rule apply to those who comment on those letters?

We’ll eventually work our way through this, but I you have an opinion on it, I’d like to hear it. You may post the comments here, or send them to me privately at harral@star-telegram.com

-- Paul Harral, Editor of the Editorial Page