This editorial was supposed to have appeared yesterday--with all the others. We're never on time. But perhaps Observant Reader might have heard about it anyway:
Some smarty-pants editorial writer, but we repeat ourselves, with a newspaper back East came up with the idea to dedicate editorial space(s) on Aug. 16 to taking on the president of the United States. If we understand the point, editorial pages all over the country were supposed to come up with 15-20 column inches on why the press isn't the enemy of the people. And take that, Donald Trump!
These things happen every now and again. Sometimes somebody sends us an email reminding us of FOI day, whenever that is, and tries to get a number of editorial writers to comment on the day, and the issue, en masse. Imagine readers lining up before dawn at convenience stores across the nation to get the latest editorial takes on the FOI laws. Now them's good reading!
The Boston paper apparently coordinated this latest effort to defend the press' honor, such as it is, and that in itself is something of an accomplishment: coordinating anything that has to do with editorial writing. We can't even get AP style down pat. And yet somebody said that more than 300 publications joined the effort yesterday. After all, the press was featured. We love talking about us.
But these days, we imagine that most of those editorials should have come with a warning to subscribers: "Do not read. For contest purposes only." That probably has more to do with the state of the American editorial page than the subject. Maybe only an American editorialist could take (1) Donald Trump, (2) his tweets and (3) his fight with the media and make the subject dour and grave. All the while writing in the Voice of God, no doubt.
There can be, however, dangers with groupthink, which is a product of not thinking at all. Ask any fashionable agitator worth his/her "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died" bumper sticker. Groupthink also leads to mob action, bandwagon bias and, even worse for writers, the loss of the ability to be creative. Which might have been a selling point for editorial boards on this latest save-the-press effort. If there's anything in our experience that promotes groupthink and stifles creativity more than an editorial board, we haven't met it.
A coordinated editorial writing campaign by multiple newspapers across the country has other downsides, like playing into the hands of those who would claim the media is in collusion for some specific purpose. And in this case, it certainly was. The next time the president takes to Twitter to whine about press coverage, he has only to mention this latest editorial effort. His supporters certainly will take note.
Yes, President Trump is very much using the media as a whipping boy, stereotyping and exaggerating every slight. We've never seen a politician with thinner skin, and we've covered Arkansas politicians. Also, the president's claiming that the media "is an enemy of the people" is not only false but dangerous. No doubt some in the media have gone overboard and lost their sense of proportion and perspective in being critical of Trump. But we should expect more from the president of United States than to respond in kind.
Editorial campaigns can work--on the local level: Get the local veterans' cemetery cleaned up. Open a charter school in a poor area of town. Convince the city council to build a new no-kill animal shelter. But gang up on this president? He might just reprint all the editorials and send them out as Christmas cards. The papers are playing right into his hands.
We'll criticize POTUS when it becomes necessary once again. (And it will.) But scheduled, coordinated--concocted--criticism sounds too much like conformity. And won't change the first mind.
Besides, as an editorial writer once noted, the only time readers want to hear the Voice of God . . . is when it's God.
Editorial on 08/17/2018