Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Fighting for the Op-Edisphere

By Danny Schechter, TomPaine.com. Posted April 9, 2005.


The op-ed page is no longer the marketplace of ideas it was established to be.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Danny Schechter

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the old days, the op-ed page of any newspaper was the place set  aside for opinion, in part to preserve the myth that the rest of the paper was somehow objective and viewpoint-free.  

Just as there was supposed to be a "wall" between the business and editorial functions in media organizations, the editorial pages were designed as the preserve of a "free" marketplace of ideas where pundits, commentators, columnists and advocates duked it out, debating the great issues of the day.

That has changed as the media system itself changes, with more media concentration and uniformity of approach influencing what we see and read. Just as the "news hole" in many newspapers shrinks, so does the space allocated for opinion. As a sometime contributor to the very diverse "Viewpoints" section of a Long Island-based daily, I have heard editors grumble about the cutbacks, which limit access by independents such as myself because of all the regulars they have to accommodate.

The prestigious NY Times op-ed page seems to be an exception, even though only l0 percent of Times readers actually read it; perhaps that is why they are launching a new section in the entertainment pages.

The experts chosen to contribute still tend to come from elite think tanks, universities and big publishers. Increasingly, PR firms, speechwriters and political consultants ghostwrite op-eds for big-name clients and then "place" them with the editors who they are always cultivating. The editors are invariably drawn to top pols and celebrity writers. Who really writes their words doesn't seem to matter--and is rarely disclosed.

Others bypass the editors altogether and simply buy space on op-ed pages to showcase ads posing as editorials, further blurring the line between ideas and advertising. Exxon Mobil brags on its website: "ExxonMobil Op-Eds continue a tradition begun 30 years ago. Placed in The New York Times, The Washington Post and selected other periodicals, the Op-Eds present economic, political and social issues important to you and the company. It is our objective to encourage thought and dialogue by informing the public about our industry, explaining our views on key issues of the day and presenting responsible policy proposals."

Oil company critics often don't have the budget to compete, although some radical causes and publications use this "op-ad" technique. In the past, TomPaine.com placed op-ads in The New York Times on a semi-regular basis.

An ideological litmus test seems to prevail as well. In the early days of the Iraq war, The Washington Post ran six pro-war columns for every one column dissenting. (On U.S. television it was worse, says former BBC Director Greg Dyke, with only six "experts" opposing the war out of the 800 interviewed in the period from the run-up to war through the Saddam statue being taken down.)


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

"News Dissector" Danny Schechter is the blogger-in-chief of Mediachannel.org. His new film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception) challenges the media coverage of the war in Iraq.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Op-eds
Posted by: brucetetley on Apr 9, 2005 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again Danny hits the nail on the head. It's even worse at a local level. I send in opinions frequently and am horrified to see them censored, watered down, and in some cases, re-written! There are no first amendment rights or free press today. Patriot Act II will undoubtedly contain language allowing monitoring and harrassment of ALL dissenting
opinion writers with accusations of treason or at best
"radical" ideas. It is a sad and dangerous state we are in.
Peak Oil and it's rapidly approaching ramifications will make today's environment seem like nirvana. Plan accordingly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Op-eds Posted by: Taschmal
» RE: Op-eds Posted by: jasbinsek
Editing is not censorship
Posted by: OutdoorsPro on Apr 10, 2005 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is mostly in reply to brucetetley and his comment about being "censored" by his local papers. Still, it seems to fit the theme of the original post.

I agree that the op-ed pages are getting stale and predictible, with the same pundits taking the same dogmatic arguments most of the time--on both sides; however, that is the right of the publications whether we like it or not. It is not a First Amendment issue.

The First Amendment in no way gaurantees your right to be published, or to be published unedited. All it does guarantee is that you have the right to voice your opinion without fear of legal reprisal (certain exceptions, of course). If the editor of a publication feels for some reason that she does not want to publish a certain letter/opinion/person, that is their right, under the First Amendment.

Not all opinions are equally valid; some reflect such a narrow viewpoint or small constituency that precious space cannot be wasted. Sometimes the publisher simply finds it invalid or objectionable. None of it is censorship.

We may not like it, but don't claim your rights are being violated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one
Posted by: Geni on Apr 12, 2005 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years ago I worked for one of the few independent newspapers left. It appeared to exist mainly to promote local public policies that would enhance the wealthy publisher's property values. Even letters to the editor were sometimes planted by him to raise his own issues. On large magazines, editorial boards ruthlessly screen out sensitive topics. Like it or not, the Internet is the only free press left today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]