Picayune Sentinel Extra: Are we headed toward a post pundit world?

Surveys show that "readers do not want to be lectured at or told what to think," Gannett newspaper chain says.

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above.

Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute reports:

Gannett has decided that the time for a traditional editorial page has come and gone. Beginning in the spring and accelerating this month, the 250-title chain is cutting back opinion pages to a few days a week while refocusing what opinion is still published to community dialogue.

Company research reportedly shows:

• Readers do not want to be lectured at or told what to think.

• Routine editorials, point-of-view syndicated columns and many commissioned guest essays consistently turn up as the most poorly read articles online.

• Readers can find a range of opinions on hot national issues on the internet — so replicating that sort of content locally is a waste of time, space and budget.

• In the digital space, readers may not easily distinguish opinion pieces from straight news reports.

• A more promising approach … is “highlighting expert local voices that are not the same-old talking heads and political hacks.”

My thoughts on each bullet point:

• Persuasive writing never tells you what to think. It tells you what the writer thinks and implicitly invites you to test that opinion against your own. And it should be aimed at the persuadable or open-minded reader. But, admittedly, too often, strident columns and editorials are aimed at riling up and providing rhetorical ammunition to those already in agreement and do come off to those on the other side as hectoring or preachy.

• I wonder if the reason opinion pieces tend to be poorly read (not clicked on) is that the headline tells the readers all they need to know. The headlines I’ve seen on numerous polemics in any number of publications recently about gun control, the attempted coup on January 6 and Ukraine — just to name three topics — suggest the argument presented will be rote, familiar, obligatory and unenlightening.

• It’s true that online sites offer plentiful and rapid takes on most national and international stories so there’s little reason for “me too!” pieces in newspapers aimed at a particular local audience unless they’re exceptionally well argued and offer a genuinely intriguing take. My friend and former colleague Steve Chapman has a rare and delightful ability to craft “well, I never thought of it that way!” columns, but he’s one of the exceptions that proves the rule.

• If readers are having a hard time distinguishing opinion content from straight news content, blame lies with the graphics department, the layout editors and the headline writers, not the readers and not the writers.

• It sounds easy, highlighting and showcasing expert voices who aren’t the usual pundit suspects. But as any source editor will tell you, experts are often not very graceful or clear writers and they often have large, heavy axes to grind. And they may have pronounced conflicts of interest that prevent them from delivering candid assessments.

Edmonds wrote:

I received tips or complaints from a half-dozen retired editors, who see the changes as a veiled cost-cutting move and abdication of the principle that a newspaper needs to stand for something and say so regularly.

As I’ve written before, I think the idea that newspapers should “stand for something” other than honest, objective, accurate reporting of relevant information and the presentation of a variety of responsible opinions is vain, antiquated nonsense that carries an odor of the bad old days of partisan rags.

Opinion/editorial sections can and should facilitate productive social and political dialogue by presenting well curated and various views on matters of close interest to readers. Paired pro and con essays, for example, rather than the often confusing he-said-she-said news stories. Or “conversation” columns in which those with contrasting views challenge one another. They need not be stuck using the 700-word sermonette format forever.

And newspapers neglect the value of trusted local voices — staff columnists — at their peril.

Joshua Darr associate professor in the Manship School of Mass Communication and the Department of Political Science at Louisiana State University writes in the Boston Globe:

Studies show that op-eds can have enduring persuasive effects — a rare finding in studies of the media — and can set the political agenda for citizens and elected officials alike. Local columnists can use their reputation and intellectual freedom to explore deep, complex, and oft-ignored community histories or serve as watchdogs to protect consumers and citizens.

The columnists can have this influence, however, only if they have a widely read and respected platform. … Columnists and editors should resist the temptation to spend valuable space on the national controversy of the moment. The market has changed: There is simply too much free competition online.

But cutting back or eliminating opinion pages is not the answer. Gannett and other newspaper owners should reinvest in what makes an opinion page work

I consider it a huge and even somewhat cowardly mistake for papers to be shrinking in fear from opinion content rather than trying to improve and bolster it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool.

How low can the GQP go?

A new political commercial for Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Missouri Eric Greitens is far more ominous than the spots showing gun totin’ Republicans blasting away at stacks of paper meant to symbolize budgets or regulations they dislike.

It’s so vile that YouTube and Facebook yanked it from their sites, so here is a description:

“I’m Eric Greitens, Navy Seal, and today we’re going RINO hunting,” says the candidate, holding a double-barreled rifle and using the slang abbreviation for “Republicans in name only.”

“The RINO feeds on corruption and is marked by the stripes of cowardice,” he says just before he and a quartet of armed men in tactical gear batter their way into an empty house and toss a smoke grenade. “Join the MAGA crew, get a RINO hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit and it doesn’t expire until we save our country,” he concludes.

Meanwhile, Republican U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who has renounced Trump, tweeted this image of a letter recently sent to his wife at home threatening him, his wife and their infant son:

“The Darkness is spreading courtesy of cowardly leaders fearful of truth,” he wrote. Is this “what you want, GOP? Pastors?”

On ABC’s “This Week” program, Kinzinger warned, “There is violence in the future, I’m going to tell you, And until we get a grip on telling people the truth, we can’t expect any differently.”

I believe there’s a reason most recent polls show Greitens leading the race for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate nomination: The amoral majority of Trump-humpers consider his bellicose, frightening swagger and implicit threat to kill perceived heretics in their ranks to be a feature, not a bug. Imagine how they feel about Democrats.

Meanwhile, let’s close with this background on Greitens courtesy of KCUR-FM in Kansas City:

Former Missouri Gov. and current U.S. Senate candidate Eric Greitens is accused by his ex-wife of physical violence against her and their children … Sheena Greitens filed for divorce in 2020 in Boone County, two years after Eric Greitens resigned in disgrace as governor on June 1, 2018.

A woman had accused Eric Greitens of sexual misconduct during an affair that started in 2015, saying he brought her to his basement, tied her up, took her clothes off and took a photograph of her without consent. The woman said the photograph was used as blackmail if she ever disclosed what happened. …

(In a court filing in March, Sheena Grietens alleged his“behavior included physical violence toward our children, such as cuffing our then three-year-old son across the face at the dinner table in front of me and yanking him around by his hair.”

Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited — along with my responses

Some of these messages are in reference to items in last Thursday’s Picayune Sentinel.

Rosemary C. — Last week’s Tune of the Day, “Another Train,” is lovely. Truly lovely. It's the type of song the WFMT-FM 98.7 program “The Midnight Special” (Saturdays 9 p.m. - midnight) plays that sends tears streaming down my face. It also reminds me of something another passenger waiting on a Pink Line platform said to me when I tripped and fell racing up the stairs to catch the train that was about to leave the station: "There's always another train." Great advice.

I’ve recommended that song to any number of people over the years who are going through spells of disappointment or discouragement, rejection, the loss of a job or opportunity. Some have told me they found it helpful. Something about them being in song form makes the exhortations sound less self-helpy.

The beginning is now 
Don't turn around 
For regrets about mistakes 
Will only drain you

I did first hear the song on “The Midnight Special,” one of the most unusual, eclectic music programs on commercial radio. Before podcasts came along I recorded it every week and curated my own set of songs and comedy bits, some of which have already shown up on the Sentinel.

Steve C. — A couple of years ago an old girlfriend who I had kept in touch with only a few times said she had some letters from me and asked if I'd like them back. My wife was not thrilled, but I said yes, because they were a glimpse of what I was like back then — not because of any lingering romantic feelings. It was very cool to read them. A few months later, I found some from another old girlfriend I had lost touch with many decades ago, found contact info and asked her if she'd like to have them, which of course she did and enjoyed reading. On the other hand, I have many from one former girlfriend who made it clear long ago, after an unpleasant breakup, that she had no interest in any further contact. Those I'll toss eventually.

Of course a good reason to get back the letters you wrote is that it removes potential scandal material from circulation. You wouldn’t want to risk a headline that read, “Supposed ‘hero’ who rescued drowning man from lake put tasteless, immature jokes in 1970s correspondence, former friend says.”

Tom T. — Regarding old letters, if someone from my past reached out unexpectedly I would think they want something other than just returning my letters. I would not be offended. but I would decline their offer because I've learned that it’s best to leave the past in the past.

I disagree strongly with your feelings about the past. It can be quite rich, entertaining and useful to revisit. The following letter puts it well:

Nancy M. — I would jump at any chance to get back my old letters! Anyone who had cached them while we corresponded during the 1970s, '80s, and '90s almost certainly is someone whose letters also are accumulated in a box in my closet. Each set of those comprises a chopped monologue that makes as much sense as listening to just one side of a telephone call. But the addition of my letters would reconstitute the original dialogue. Re-witnessing my own long-ago conversations would be as close as I'll ever get to time travel! Memory already is a too-fragile carrier of our lives' reality. Most of what I've said and done in 67 years already has faded from my recollection. Why ever would I turn down an opportunity to resurrect written snapshots of myself in youth and middle age? It's not as if I ever will pass that way again in any other manner.

Maury C — My affinity for paper/history/friendships/records in general caused me to keep pretty much all the paper that crossed my path from the first pay stub in high school through this past year's Christmas cards/credit card receipts/bank statements/tax returns/medical records/insurance claims/misc correspondence and every utility bill I paid over a long period of time. So several years ago I determined to dispose of multiple years of paper; it took six months, and in the course of so doing, I was able to return to my siblings, college roommates, cousins, friends of long years their postcards, wedding invitations/birth announcements, Christmas cards, handwritten letters, obits, photos of newborns and high school grads, and a host of other memories. (And I should note, I didn't ask, I just sent them.). I first had the pleasure of reliving our lives and then returning the records to the various recorders/correspondents. It was a great experience, albeit six months in the doing, but pretty much all of them responded that they appreciated having some part of their life's history in hand, on paper. I don't know what they did with the actual paper, but it's not in boxes in my basement anymore and it was a pleasurable exercise.

You don’t say how old you are, but most of us of a certain vintage understand the impulse to downsize both literally and emotionally. You’re more of a pack rat than I am, but I do have carbon copies of most of the letters I wrote in the 1970s and 1980s. Nevertheless I’m sure some of my old friends/associates have Zornorabilia that would delight/relieve me to have in my possession again.

Steve J. — Ranked choice voting, yes, but also non-partisan primaries. Partisan primaries that are dominated by a segment of diehards are what’s kept congressional Republicans in Trump’s orbit (along with their absent spines), even though they absolutely know better. The absence of these two election reforms is what allowed Trump to become president. In 2016, he stood out from a crowded and uniformly undistinguishable field and kept winning primaries unimpressive pluralities of thevote. These two reforms in Alaska is what has allowed Lisa Murkowski to survive as a Republican.

Spot on. Alaska has a non-partisan primary followed by a ranked-choice general election between the top four vote getters, which is a brilliant combination. The emphasis then becomes on finding consensus

Robert M.—With RCV, George H. W. Bush would likely have defeated Bill Clinton in 1992. But Al Gore would have defeated Dubya in Florida, and thus in the 2000 Presidential race.

These counterfactuals are hard to prove. The American Spectator says Clinton would have won anyway and Reason says “No, Ralph Nader Did Not Hand the 2000 Presidential Election to George W. Bush.”

Jake H. — One potential problem with Instant Runoff Voting (or Ranked Choice Voting) is that you can never "revive" a previously eliminated candidate, so any votes for an eliminated candidate during any subsequent round will not count, and those ballots will go to the voter's next choice or, if there aren't any subsequent ranked choices for a candidate that's still alive, thrown out.

The more I've looked into it, though, the more it seems there's no perfect voting system. You have to decide what conditions or potential anomalies you care most about. Maybe IRV/RCV) is the best. If you google "problems with IRV," you will be presented with a fun rabbit hole to go down if you're so inclined.

It's sort of like how there's no such thing as an accurate map of the world (because it's a globe). You have to pick your distortion.

There is no question that every voting system has drawbacks as soon as any complexity at all is introduced into a race.

Steve S — I’m with you. Recall elections are a refusal to accept that your candidate lost. Supporters of recall want “another bite of the apple.” Recalls are an attempt to make our two-party, fixed-term electoral system more like a multi-party parliamentary system. However, the replacement’s term still expires on the original schedule. Recalls are a waste of time and money.

Ya gotta see these tweets!

I often run across tweets that are too visual in nature to include in the Tweet of the Week contest (the template for the poll does not allow the use of images). Here are a few good ones I’ve come across recently:

an engy human 🪵🦉 @English_Channel

teacher: does anyone know the answer?....*sigh* besides Ezekiel

yeah ok @poutinesmoothie

Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?

Louie Stowell @Louiestowell

Got a new terrible, monstrous dad joke. Ask someone if they want a brownie. Then hand them this....

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.