The print space devoted to the issue showed a commitment to community discussion; the effort to divide that space completely equally seemed unnecessary, even just before the election, given that the paper’s editorial pages had clearly taken a stand. A proportional division based on the submissions received could have been better, with some method for using the unlimited space online to share submitted columns that wouldn’t fit in print.
Nancy Webb, who edits the letters for the Observer, said she received many more original letters against the amendment than supporting it. The only exception, she said, came earlier in the spring, when form letters arrived calling for a boycott of Starbucks for supporting same-sex marriage. (The National Organization for Marriage urged the letter-writing campaign.) Webb said the Observer avoids printing astroturfed letters.
Down on the coast, the Wilmington Star News, a former New York Times regional newspaper with a university nearby, took a strong editorial stand against Amendment One. It, too, uses Facebook comments (though in this case, a brief review showed that the requirement for real names didn’t prevent ad hominem arguments). The paper, now owned by Halifax Communications, continues to devote letters space to the issue a week after the vote.
The paper also showed quick reflexes on the editorial page and rapid response to voter concerns after a sign at a church used as a voting precinct took a direct position on Amendment One. An editorial that urged the county elections board to consider the effect of church signs on precinct voters went online on election day, providing concrete leadership in the reexamination of long established practice. The paper, now owned by Halifax Communications, deserves applause.
In April, after the Pulitzer board declined to award a prize for editorials this year, Dan Gillmor weighed in at the Guardian on what he called “the lost art of editorials.” Wrote Gillmor:
Great editorial pages had clout in the old days for two reasons. The first was that newspapers themselves had clout, which has dissipated in recent years. The second was that editorial pages genuinely stood for something. They were used by newspaper publishers to help set and move the public agenda.
Gillmor lamented the “standard ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ nonsense” produced by editorial pages at many “metro and local dailies” today, and urged them to instead aim to “get the community involved in a broader conversation about its condition and its future.”
Which is precisely what several North Carolina newspapers endeavored to do around Amendment One. Now: How to keep the conversation going?
Correction: This post originally misidentified John Robinson’s title at the News & Record. He is the paper’s former editor, not the former managing editor. CJR regrets the error.
Interesting discussion, especially about the echo effect of the FB filter for reader comments. These are many good examples of editorial writers being willing to take a stand at the risk of angering readers. The irony for the publisher in Greensboro (where I live and used to write a metro column) is that the motivation seemed to be that he wanted to avoid angering readers about a a vote he called a "highly personal" decision (although it seemed a highly public community decision.) The trouble was, at least in the city limits, the newspaper's core circulation and advertising area, the precincts went 60-40 against the ballot question. So in possibly not wishing to offend, the newspaper appears to have angered readers by not taking a stand one way or another. Being neutral has its own perils.
#1 Posted by Lorraine Ahearn, CJR on Wed 16 May 2012 at 07:44 PM
And in spite of all the editorials against, the voters overwhelmingly supported the amendment. It makes me wonder about the relevance of op/eds. I don't recall seeing in print a full dissection of the actual amendment wording and any point by point rebuttals to the provisions of the text which may have in fact dissuaded some pro voters - when advertising breaks down important legislation into two-word sound bites like "marriage protection" it seems to me it is incumbent upon the voters to learn more of what is behind the actual legislation - I think the journals I read generally let voters down by not providing more depth in this regard.
#2 Posted by michael j. solender, CJR on Wed 16 May 2012 at 09:05 PM
Michael wrote: when advertising breaks down important legislation into two-word sound bites like "marriage protection" it seems to me it is incumbent upon the voters to learn more of what is behind the actual legislation
padikiller responds: This is just the latest iteration of the standard liberal "the average slob is too stupid to make his own decisions" schtick....
All we need is little more reeducation, and the masses will swing into line, right?
What is "behind" the "actual legislation" you ask?
Well, just read it!
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."
What about these two sentences is hard to understand? What is "behind" this straightforward definition? Why do we need an editorial board to tell us what these two sentences "really" mean?
The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans don't want gay marriage. To them, in fact, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
This isn't about morals for many people (though it certainly is for many), instead it is about culture and tradition and families.
All the op/eds in the world aren't going to convince these people that gay marriages should be legally recognized.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 May 2012 at 11:03 PM
Yet another area where govt gets more authority than it should, and taxpayers foot the bill for another bureaucracy. All hail the marriage police! *smh*
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 02:40 AM
This isn't a bureaucracy...
This is the people directly defining a social institution through plebiscite.
Lefties are typically hypocritical over the matter.
The lefties will blither on about the "fundamentalist" intolerant "uneducated rednecks" of North Carolina when it comes to this issue... But see how many of them have publicly castigated Islam for its much less tolerant stance on homosexuality.
NOTE: I am not against gay marriage, personally. Not really for it, either. I probably would not have voted on the matter. I can see both sides of this issue.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 08:45 AM
One aspect of the 'framing' of this issue worth mentioning is that in press coverage, the issue is promoted as being about homosexuality, rather than about marriage. This emphasis permits most coverage I've seen to (big surprise) present the issue in terms of that apparently-addictive story device, 'tolerance' vs. 'intolerance'.
This is of course narrow and misleading - especially if you ask a simple question like 'What does marriage equality mean for the third wheel in the LGBT vehicle, bisexuals'? The framing of the issue strictly in terms of same-sex couples allows the advocates to avoid answering the tough questions. We went through this slovenly thinking after the civil rights movement, which started with giving all people their rights regardless of ancestry, and ended up with students being assigned to public schools and evaluated for college admissions and jobs specifically according to their ancestry.
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 12:35 PM
Bravo to Andria for this analysis of the Amendment One issue and newspaper editorial pages. I think the power of the editorial page may be waning as Dan Gillmor suggests. To not use the one place where point of view is celebrated to take on such an important issue does consign the News & Record to editorial oblivion on other issues.
To really measure the value of editorial pages, we would need to know which voters actually read the newspaper. And whether they are influenced by these editorial pages. That data will remain elusive, however.
#7 Posted by Michelle Ferrier, CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 01:09 PM
Gay or not, just don't force me to subsidize the perks or penalties to other people's personal choices. I'm egregiously taxed for many detestable and illicit undertakings as it is.
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 01:15 PM
For Michael and others who brought up framing, it's a good point. Perhaps newspapers could have focused more on the law's effect on all unmarried couples of any gender. Some advertising brought up that point, but most of the discussion and stories focused on gay couples.
The initial impact: State institutions and municipalities are reexamining the benefits they provide all unmarried couples. It's begun:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/17/3247708/city-council-shouldnt-snub-amendment.html
Public Policy Polling has a new survey that shows an 11-point shift in the percentage of African Americans who favor gay marriage since President Obama's statement.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/movement-among-black-north-carolinians-on-gay-marriage.html
...and finally, Michelle's right in that it's *not enough* to say editorials have a unique, traditional role in shaping community opinion. We need data, and we could get it. Some research papers on the subject likely exist; more study, under current print and online readership levels with social sharing, seems a worthy effort.
And thanks, y'all, for reading and commenting!
#9 Posted by Andria K., CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 09:27 PM