www.roanoke.com

Dan Radmacher

Recent columns

• Energy's high cost may force shift to rail
• Cooling down the anti-tax rhetoric
• Don't discount all news sources
• Some detainees are innocent

• Column archive

From the RoundTable blog

• Secret discussions at Montgomery County
• But will bin Laden's driver be freed?
• Virginia should extend scholarships to a second and third generation
• A new plan for Gainsboro

A few months back, there was an interesting discussion on the e-mail list of the National Conference of Editorial Writers about whether unsigned editorials are "so last century" and should be done away with.

Unsigned editorials aren't even "last century." They came into prominence in the 19th century, making them, I suppose, "so century before last."

As a tsunami of opinion floods the airwaves, newspages and the Internet, I think editorial writers are wise to engage in self-reflection about what we do and why anyone else should care.

This conversation was spurred by a news editor on the West Coast who asked his editorial page editor why the newspaper didn't just do away with anonymous, institutional opinion -- which tends to confuse and anger readers, and makes them question the fairness of news coverage -- in favor of signed opinions from a variety of sources.

As the editorial page editor summed up the argument, "Readers don't see the wall between news and opinion. The news editors say if we didn't have editorials, that problem wouldn't exist."

Many of the responses focused on the fact that editorials reflect more than an individual opinion. Susan Parker of The Daily Times in Salisbury, Md., said, "The important thing about unsigned editorials is that they reflect the input of several people, not necessarily just the writer. ... I find the input to be valuable. Sometimes I learn aspects of an issue I never would have considered on my own."

That led Matt Neistein of the Tampa Tribune to ask why our group opinion was any more valuable than another group's. "Why aren't the eight retired guys who have met at the coffee shop every morning for the last 25 years -- who are arguably as passionate and informed about the community as the editorial board -- offered the same platform and implied importance as the board? Why do we hold our collective opinion to be of more value than anyone else's?" he asked.

But editorials don't represent the opinion of just any group. Frank Partsch, the retired editorial page editor of the Omaha World-Herald and one of my favorite thinkers, said that editorial boards are unique in that newspapers have a "timeless role in the community and a financial stake that could be jeopardized by lapses in judgment or professionalism."

Ron Dzwonkowski, editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press, made a similar point: "The unsigned editorial is the voice of a concerned community institution, a local business that, in addition to trying to make money, has a mission enshrined in the Constitution to serve as an independent watchdog on government and public policy. The editorial voice -- a product of consensus that is not always what the writer would say were he or she speaking as an individual -- should carry more weight than an individual's column or blog."

This conversation has been in my thoughts often since it occurred, but I've been chewing it over even more lately as we've been discussing ways to re-energize The RoundTable, our editorial page blog.

The RT is our attempt to take the community conversation that's been on our pages for decades to a new level.

Opinion pages have always been about interactivity and debate. Letters to the editor encourage citizens to speak their minds. We give commentary space every day to opposing points of view.

The RT gives us the opportunity to do more. We can explain our positions more fully than is possible in the limited confines of the printed page. We can link to the source material that helped form our opinion. We can respond directly to questions or challenges -- those that appear on our blog or elsewhere online.

It's all very 21st century.

But that 19th century institution still beckons, and still forms the foundation of what we do here.

I've devoted nearly my entire career to editorial writing because I believe editorials can make a difference. I've seen them make a difference.

Yes, we need to adapt and change to the evolving online world. But the heart of what we do will remain the editorial, a piece reflecting the consensus view of a group of people who represent an enduring institution with a financial stake in the community.

I don't know whether, as Dzwonkowski said, our opinion should carry more weight than an individual column or blog. But I believe it's an important voice that needs to be heard -- and producing that voice is an important responsibility that needs to remain our priority.

Radmacher is the editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times.