The sixty-third annual convention of editorial writers could hardly have met at a worse time.
Only a few days earlier, many of the papers represented carried stories saying that despite some positive signs in the rest of the economy, the downturn for newspapers had yet to hit bottom. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press had released a survey showing public confidence in the mainstream news media at a new low; 63 percent of those polled said news stories were often inaccurate. Serious questions continued to be raised as to whether some cities—Philadelphia being the most notable—would even retain a major daily.
Earlier in the year, the American Society of Newspaper Editors had for only the second time in its eighty-seven-year history canceled its convention. At a time when editors were cutting staff, travel, and newsroom budgets to the bone, how could they bring themselves to fly off to Chicago for what would be perceived as fun and games? ASNE bigwigs looked at the small number of signups and concluded they had only one option: to pull the plug.
As it turned out, leaders of the National Conference of Editorial Writers thought about doing the same thing. And they might have, had not the organization faced a high penalty if it reneged on its contract with the host hotel. Acting President Tom Waseleski said it would cost the organization less to incur the losses of a sparsely attended convention than to cancel it.
And sparsely attended it was. Only about eighty men and women trickled into Salt Lake City’s Hilton Hotel for the late September conference, and many of them were retirees who paid their own way or representatives of various good government and environmental organizations out to get the ear of the editorial writers. Outside, the late September weather was warm and sunny, but spirits inside were decidedly gloomy. “Not here this year,” was a common response when people asked the whereabouts of writers who had attended almost all recent conventions.
Some of those who did attend—like the NCEW president who only weeks before had to step down from the office after taking a non-newspaper job—had gone into other lines of work. Unlike past conventions, when members asking questions of a speaker were asked to approach a microphone so they could be heard by the large audience, the questioners this year were easily audible to the small numbers present.
But in a couple of ways the convention proceeded as normal. A major draw at all NCEW conventions is the all-day critique session. In advance of the convention, members carefully comb through each others’ editorial and op-ed pages so that they can present detailed suggestions to the five or so writers in each group as to how their pages and editorials could be improved. It’s a painstaking process that takes a lot of work, and it’s uncomfortable if not outright embarrassing to be the writer at the receiving end of the criticism. One writer at the session I attended this year sheepishly explained the stodgy, old-fashioned look of his pages by pointing out his publisher’s aversion to any change. One would think this was 1959 instead of 2009, except for the fact that this newspaper’s circulation had recently dipped by 25 percent.
As in past conventions, the editorial writers also heard from prominent present and former public officials from the area. This year, former George W. Bush administration Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael O. Leavitt, who had also been a Utah governor, spoke about health care reform and the dangers of deficit spending. John Hughes, a Brigham Young University professor and former editor of The Christian Science Monitor and Deseret News, discussed freedom, credibility, and tradition in this day of online journalism.

Well said.
I was there as a semiretired academic member paying his own way and willing if elected to serve on the board. I go partly to be in touch but largely because NCEW has been and is a valuable resource for some very talented, responsible people.
From a sort of urban ivory tower, I have a strong affinity for those who strive to lead some of the discussion on editorial pages, letters pages and the numerous electronic devices that are taking on much of the public forum function. It is one of several areas in our world that are changing too rapidly, in part because of the shortsightedness of the publishing companies.
--John McClelland, associate professor of journalism, emeritus
Roosevelt University, Chicago, where we NCEW members
in 2004 met a rising young state senator named Obama.
#1 Posted by John McClelland, CJR on Tue 8 Dec 2009 at 06:51 PM
Apologies for this later than late response, but thanks from a long-distance retired/active member to Dick Benfield for his telling summary of NCEW's Salt Lake City convention...News media editorial pages still provide treasured resources of value to the reading public: (1) clear and direct writing that explains and interprets world and community situations, (2) access by readers to raise questions, suggest answers, offer opinions on issues big and small, (3) an arena where contending/competing views can be put on the same page for clearer comparison, (4) a context for presenting opinions and viewpoints that have been thought through by presenters, rather than blurted (often anonymously) in anger with little supporting information, (5) a dependable center for memory and conscience that helps set the community agenda.
Even on limited budgets, news organizations will maintain relevance to readers, listeners and viewers by focusing on fundamental strengths. The public wants comment that gets to the point, makes the point, explains and backgrounds the point, urges remedies or at least lists options. Often the reader wants less to participate in a forum than to find reassurance or validation from an experienced view—confirmation that what the reader/listener understood to be the real crux of a complex issue has been detailed as suspected in concise terms... Letter writers can be trained, harnessed and motivated in gentle ways to keep their messages tight, constructive and focused. We all know these arouse and inspire other readers and lead to more letters. As threadbare a device as reviewing each month's published letters and selecting a letter of the month, recognized in a small op-ed article and perhaps a year-end low-budget lunch for all monthly winners, may seem like a corny gimmick to some, but pages that have tried it have found it develops reader interest in a relatively inexpensive way. Again, it utilizes a resource-in-demand— news media as vehicles for individual expression and public recognition. Thanks again to NCEW and others for their persistence in serving member editors, writers, electronic media allies, and the interests of the reading, viewing, listening public. John Simonds, (former editorial page editor, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, former reader representative Honolulu Advertiser.)
#2 Posted by John Simonds, CJR on Mon 17 May 2010 at 01:12 PM