Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Editorials with
fangs
I love writing editorials. But, God, how I hate reading most of them.
mToo many are ponderous incantations to the status quo. They’re as bland
as a bowl of warm custard.
For the life of me I can’t figure out why this is so. Opinion writers
in America can write without fear. We can name names and publish what would
get journalists elsewhere a bullet to back of the head. We’re the lucky
ones. Why not use our freedom? What’s the fun of having the First Amendment
if we melt into inconsequential, inoffensive babbling?
I know, I know. Some editorials do make a difference. One of the best
examples is The Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel’s 1988 Pulitzer-Prize winning editorial
series by Jane Healy, titled, "Florida’s Shame." In take-no-prisoners prose,
it connected the dots between developers responsible for pollution and
their political cronies in the legislature. She published pictures of those
attacked and included everything but their mothers’ phone numbers. The
series was fearless and made a difference.
When it’s not possible to write editorials that expose corruption and
storm conventional wisdom, I aim for writing editorials that elicit emotion;
they make readers feel sad, glad, or mad and — most important — make readers
think.
Passion is good. So is writing short editorials; they tend to be better
written and are more considerate of readers’ time.
Allowing our jobs to become routine will destroy our ability to make
change. What a blessing our jobs are. Just think: we could have wound up
as blanchers on the snow pea line of a canning factory. Yet we’re not;
we are paid to make a difference.
Let’s do that.
Casey is associate editorial page editor of The Day, New London,
Conn.
