A newspaper’s sense of civic responsibility drives much of its coverage.
That’s played out in the Star-Telegram in many ways, from publishing news and information about charity events to focusing the paper’s considerable watchdog resources on political affairs.
It almost goes without saying that in a dynamic city, odds are that the dynamics will include an aggressive newspaper with a passion for helping to ensure that city’s cultural and economic integrity and vitality.
When an alarming local development emerges, that newspaper will respond vigorously, up to and including putting its credibility on the line if that’s what it takes, to shine light on potential dangers.
All of that was at play as the Star-Telegram examined the controversial “meet-and-confer” issue in which the Fort Worth Police Officers Association sought voter approval for limited bargaining rights with the city administration.
Publisher Wesley R. Turner and members of the Editorial Board were extremely concerned that passage of the measure would result in higher taxes, divisiveness within the Police Department and city government, and other problems that could harm the public good.
Board members used the editorial and Op-Ed pages to engage the issue early on by writing editorials and staff columns, as well as running letters to the editor, that subjected “meet and confer” to examination from many angles to help readers develop informed opinion about the bargaining concept.
In the newsroom, which operates independently, the issue was not as compelling until the POA’s campaign gained momentum and prominence as a talk issue.
Keep those two points in mind, and one other: The Editorial Board is forbidden by ethics, policy and tradition to meddle in the newsroom’s work, and vice versa. Further, Editorial Board views are restricted to the opinion pages. As a rule, such content is not allowed on news pages.
Those conditions exist for good reason, primarily to protect credibility.
For the same reason that farmers don’t irrigate crops with raw seawater and Fido isn’t allowed to gorge on chocolate, credible newspapers normally don’t mix their institutional opinion with news content. That’s a toxic mix that would poison credibility. Readers would rightly question whether free and independent efforts were guiding the newsgathering processes or whether that work was so much puppetry at the hands of the board.
To guard against that, most daily newspapers are extremely careful about keeping news operations and content separate and apart from editorial page and Op-Ed work.
Yet on Nov. 5, in advance of Election Day, some readers might have noticed (as I did) a rarity on Page One that caused my wavy gray locks to briefly stand on end: Editorial Board opinion.
The top item in the left-hand column, where blurbs promote items that are inside the paper, carried an “Editorial” label. The headline and text, written by Op-Ed/Sunday editor Sarah Yoest Pederson and approved by Vice President/Editorial Director Paul Harral, referred readers to a lengthy editorial on the cover of the Weekly Review section that urged Fort Worth voters to defeat the “meet-and-confer” ballot proposal.
“Don’t be misled by police group,” the headline said for the seven-line item that ended with ” … and you should vote against the measure.”
The only other major instance in recent history in which Star-Telegram editorial comment ran on Page One occurred in special editions on Sept. 11 and 12, 2001, after al Qaeda terrorists’ horrific attacks in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. As opposed to the Nov. 5 blurb, the Star-Telegram showcased in full an eloquent 9-11 editorial written by Harral, who offered much-needed wisdom and rallying points.
In both cases, but in greatly varying degrees, the Editorial Board felt compelled to step onto Page One briefly out of response to civic responsibility. I received not one complaint from readers about the Nov. 5 front-page editorial blurb, but some news staffers — steeped in the practice of guarding credibility from the incursion of institutional opinion — were understandably uncomfortable about the move.
However, Turner said: “I thought our [Weekly Review editorial] was so important that we needed to make sure that readers had every opportunity to read our position. We would never have run the editorial on Page One.”
Ultimately, 54.3 percent of Fort Worth’s voters approved meet and confer.
“Congratulations to the winners,” Turner said by telephone from New York City, where the Star-Telegram was one of 10 U.S. companies honored Wednesday night with the BCA Ten award for support of community arts organizations and events presented by the Business Committee for the Arts.
No one knows whether meet and confer would have fared better or worse without attention from the Editorial Board, but “we did the best job we could to inform voters” about the issue, Turner said.
In meeting that responsibility, the Star-Telegram brushed against the wall that separates news from institutional opinion and — to me, at least — momentarily put its credibility on the line. But there are times when that’s necessary. There’s a simple reason. As Turner said, “We care about Fort Worth.”
