News-Record.com

Seems fair enough. While I've no doubt you don't always share the same opinion, I've always considered the Editorial to be the Paper's opinion be it one man or many.

I appreciate your explanation of unsigned editorials.

I personally have never been bothered by them. And that was despite not knowing background details behind the process of writing them.

It always amuses me when someone complains about views being expressed on your editorial pages.

The beauty behind reading anything is that you have the freedom to agree or disagree with what is expressed.

While your editorial views probably (many would argue, arguably) lean more toward the liberal spectrum, they are balanced by many letter writers and regular columnists. A checks and balances system of sorts, even if many would argue that the balance leans one way more than the other.

For example, I strongly disagree with Charles Davenport, Jr. a great deal of the time, but I appreciate reading what he writes. He writes well, and it's as important for those who agree with his views to read what he writes as it is for those of us who disagree with his views to do the same. (I'm not sure that some people understand or appreciate this.)

I would much rather read what he writes and have the ability to respond to it than to be kept in the dark that such views exist.

It is important for all humans to realize that intelligent people can arrive at views different from their own.

And if I disagree strongly enough, I can attempt to persuade Davenport or anyone else that their views might be flawed or even flat-out wrong.

Davenport (or anyone else) can do the same in return.

Hopefully this very Blog will allow for such exchanges to occur.

And in the process, we all might become more enligtened than we may have already assumed ourselves to be.

One of the least healthy activities is only to expose yourself to views that perfectly align with your own. I see little opportunity for personal and intellectual growth in such a vacuum. (Too many humans reach a point where they have no interest in such continued personal and intellecutual development. We assume way too early in our lives that we have reached an adequate plateau of knowledge and understanding. What could possibly be more arrogant? There's always going to be far more out there that we don't truly know and understand than that which we actually do. And yet we all have too great a tendency to become a little too self-satisfied with and uncritical of our own views.)

Even if you consistently disagree with a writer's views, by regularly reading what that person writes, you are at least challenged to sharpen your own views in opposition. The best writers even challenge us to reevaluate our most dearly held views.

(As a side note, does Charles Davenport, Jr. have a Blog, and/or will the News & Record set up one for him? A fellow teacher and I, both of whom usually disagree with Davenport's views, thoroughly enjoyed what he wrote recently about grammar. And one of my all-time favorite Davenport columns was one in which he addressed driving habits. It was a gem! If he avoided writing about politics, I might be inclined to agree with him all the time. But I would also miss something in the process.)

I understand why people want to associate a specific name with a specific piece of writing, but it's not always necessary. You still have the freedom to agree or disagree with it. No one can ever take that away from you. You have the freedom to respond to it also, and if you feel the desire, dissect how and why the views are wrong or at least misguided. And as you pointed out, we can always identify the pool of writers from which the editorials emerge, even if we don't know precisely the individual writer.

Just out of curiosity, when the editorial board meets and decides on a position to take, do you brainstorm together what to write in the editorials? Does one editorial writer walk away from the meeting and decide solely what exactly to include in the editorial? Does the editorial board compose the editorials together? Or is it a combination of these approaches?

Your Blog is off to a great start!

I look forward to seeing where it goes from here.

Mr. Floyd's points about agreeing or disagreeing with what is printed would work well in a world where everyone had the communication skills to join into the debate. My concern is that as the news and opinions are printed without regard for all of the facts; both sides of an issue being presented, too many of the average readers are misinformed.
A perfect example is in the first leter to the editor in today's paper, "White House trying to end Social Security." If I were in a position of responsibility at a major newspaper I would feel like a failure because this writer reads your paper and has no grasp of the need for reform nor why now is the time to do it. Mr Floyd is just wrong when he claims balance is reached.
I agree with Charles Davenport ninety percent of the time

Jasper: You agree with Davenport. That's clear enough. Beyond that you've lost me. Do you suggest that debate is irrelevant, because there's not an even playing field?

Or, that weighing the evidence at hand and forming an opinion is symptomatic of bias and ignorance (only if that opinion disagrees with yours, of course)?

To cite your "perfect example," there are many reasonable people who see no crisis in Social Security, and who identify issues that should be addressed first (hint: health care delivery and costs). To suggest that someone who holds that opinion has "no grasp of the need for reform" is arrogant, particularly since you treat the need as self-evident and don't bother to back up your opinion with facts.

If you want to fight misinformation, there are plenty of ways to do it. Dismissing those who disagree with you isn't one of them.

"And as a matter of courtesy in those cases, I avoid assigning the editorial to the dissenting staff members."

In politics and other venues, it's common for the person most fervently in favor of a policy to write the "talking points" *against* it - that person has to do the most research and find the non-opinion in the facts available. Sometimes, the objector's opinion is turned around. It could be a useful exercise for those with opinions that could stand to see the other side of things.

My issue with editorials isn't necessarily that they are unsigned. I just don't believe in an institutional opinion.

Opinions expressed in the editorials are generally tepid at best. Maybe that's because they are generated by consensus or maybe because the opinion has to reflect an entire institution rather than an individual. I sometimes think that the editorials are watered down because the opinion expressed could do damage to the image of the institution.

I'd rather read two conflicting opinions about the same issue, written by and ascribed to a particular individual. Opinions and views that are expressed in columns are generally stronger and more interesting.

That's a valid point. We don't have to be as stodgy or meastured or reserved as we come across at times. We'll try to loosen up.

Since I now live a couple hundred miles away, I didn't realize you listed the editorial board each day. That's a nice move.

I just always hated answering questions from angry callers who assumed that "the opinion of this newspaper" were also the opinions of every reporter and editor on staff. I think if unsigned editorials were dropped, that question might go away.

Perhaps if you gave a vote count on each editorial? Sounds radical, but given the way you're all rewriting the rules (for the better!), it might be worth a try.

suntanned natural tit http://www.lunes-sexi-trailer.chickasadulto.com [URL=http://www.porn-star-tit.lovelyboobs.net]porn star tit[/URL]

megalos porno II skliro porno eksairetikos II mob me stithos binteo II mpaniarisma apaisios II sperm sikmek II oral bilder flickor II hot sexsex II stjernbo hot II brunett tjej kon II spermakaskader smsmovies II imeskella bbw tarinoita II homse puling imu II areeya II mahtava tytsyt kusta II dick kat brudar II perverssi sundsvall dildo II hyndan pissa II fittagammalhand skit II emotionnel etudiante double chatte II intense filles pipes II sinnsbevegelse ung skitt II kald tenaring puling II invisibile amatoriali sexldo II hardsex II picture aggigma poza II binteo moynia eikonidia II vanlig tonaring dubbel fitta samlag II osynlig elev urinerar II

MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE