Unsigned editorials
The practice of publishing unsigned editorials has always bothered me. Journalists go through great pains to be seen as objective only to be associated with the unsigned editorials of colleagues they may not even even know.
I've always been confused why media outlets endorse political candidates, since it seems to only confuse people about their mission. The misconception of the divisions between an editorial page and the rest of the newsroom hurts the reputation of news outlets more than it helps readers interpret the news.
Manny Fernandez of the New York Times reported this week that an Oklahoma newspaper is losing advertisers and subscribers because people are conflating the news coverage of its journalists with its unsigned editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton. Those people, presumably Trump supporters, are wrong. And crazy. And missing the point, maybe on purpose.
But even so, is it worth it? Why have unsigned editorials to begin with? What's wrong with putting a name to an opinion?
I've always been confused why media outlets endorse political candidates, since it seems to only confuse people about their mission. The misconception of the divisions between an editorial page and the rest of the newsroom hurts the reputation of news outlets more than it helps readers interpret the news.
Manny Fernandez of the New York Times reported this week that an Oklahoma newspaper is losing advertisers and subscribers because people are conflating the news coverage of its journalists with its unsigned editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton. Those people, presumably Trump supporters, are wrong. And crazy. And missing the point, maybe on purpose.
But even so, is it worth it? Why have unsigned editorials to begin with? What's wrong with putting a name to an opinion?