Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of The New York Times answered questions from readers all about its editorial section. My question below was among those addressed by Mr. Rosenthal...
How the Editorial Board Works
Q. How do you and your team rank current issues in order of importance? What is the actual system — do you use a white board? Your life must be one giant brainstorming session! In the picking and choosing what to cover and what to skip, I wonder if there is some heated debate in house?
— Molly Winans
Q. Can you discuss the process of how an editorial is written, a subject is chosen and who might be involved in the content? Who has the final word on its content? Is there ever dissent within the editorial board, and how does that get resolved?
— David Propp
Q. Can you describe the process by which your editorial writers craft their editorials. Is it by committee? Do the reporters have any input? Who decides the final draft?
— Steve Hibbard, Fairfax, Va.
Q. How do you choose your topics? Do you ever feel pressured by colleagues or others to write about international events as opposed to national or local matters (or vice versa)? Have you ever shied away from a topic, no matter how important, because you felt that you had already published too many recent editorials or Op-Ed pieces on the subject?
— Charlene Vickers, Calgary, Alberta
Q. I'm so glad to know that people all over the world are now able to access and read the work of your topnotch columnists for free. What are the ways you engage your 13 million online readers? Do you test editorial ideas on blogs, bulletin boards, etc., before you write and publish them in the paper?
— Rey Rosales, Romeoville, Ill.
Q. An editorial does not inform; it expresses a point of view. In turn, a point of view is based on certain values and principles. These values and principles are what give life to an editorial. What underlying values and principles do New York Times editorials express: your own? Those which you assume your fellow citizens share, for instance, the defense of national interests, however you may define them (these would include upholding the United States Constitution even against public opinion if necessary)? Or do you think The New York Times — as a newspaper with a truly international vocation (I am Italian and read the electronic issue of The New York Times first thing in the morning) — owes it to the people of the world to defend the human values par excellence — justice, freedom, brotherhood — even if they run against what your fellow citizens would consider "right"?
— Carlo Geneletti
Q. The Times's editorial page really went after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. I don't disagree with the decision at all, but I was curious how the board decides which topics deserve more consideration (and print space) than others. With so many editorial topics only making one-night stands, so to speak, when do you know that a topic is worthy of more dogged pursuit? Do you calculate your realistic hopes of achieving the result, e.g. Gonzales's resignation may be easier to bring about with sustained pressure than changing people's fossil fuel consumption?
— Barry Pump, Seattle
A. I've had quite a few questions (including the ones above) that essentially ask how the editorial board works — how we pick the topics for our editorials, how we decide what positions to take, and so on. You may be interested to know that when I do orientation sessions for new employees at the Times, which happens two or three times a year, in groups, I get asked this same question. That testifies not only to the effectiveness of the wall between the editorial department and the newsroom at this and other newspapers (which I'll talk about in a future posting), but also to a general interest in the topic. So here goes.
Editorials are written by members of the editorial board, which currently has 18 members, almost all of them in New York. Serge Schmemann, the editorial page editor of our sister paper, The International Herald Tribune, is a member of our board, but lives in Paris, where The Trib is published. I head the board, which also includes Deputy Editorial Page Editor Carla Robbins, Assistant Editorial Page Editor Adam Cohen and Associate Editorial Page Editor Robert Semple. Our board members each have areas of responsibility, expertise and specialization, that are really just like the "beats" to which news reporters are assigned. That means they are responsible for keeping up with the issues and the news in their areas and for suggesting and writing editorials on those subjects. In addition to their main beats, our editorial writers have a wide range of interests and will sometimes write on other topics as well. We all try to keep up with as much as we can, since our group conversations go from topic to topic from day to day.
For a list of the board members, their bios and their specialties, click here.
The board meets three times a week, on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, for an hour or sometimes longer. The routine is fairly consistent: I go around the table, calling on each writer, who talks about the editorials that she or he is working on, what the topic will be and what the editorial point, or "bottom line," will be. Sometimes, it's completely uncontroversial; we're writing about a topic on which our editorial position is well established. At other times, a writer will introduce a new topic and the discussion begins. Everyone is free, and indeed encouraged, to chime in on any subject, and we will often have a lively debate. By the time it's over, the aim is to have arrived at an editorial position that represents a rough consensus of the board. We don't vote, as such, and complete unanimity is not required, but we strive for positions that the group can support.
As we go around the table, I will indicate to the writer whether to go ahead and work on the subjects he or she is suggesting. Most of our writers are working on two or three or even more topics at any given time.
Some subjects demand more formal treatment, so I will ask an editorial writer to come on a particular day prepared to lead a discussion about a subject — like Medicare drug insurance, or a proposal for a national ID card, or the state of the immigration reform bill, or the electoral college, or civil liberties post 9/11, or, of course, Iraq, a subject we discuss frequently and in great detail. We take particular care to air a subject thoroughly when we stake out ground on a new issue, or when we're contemplating changing our position on a given issue. We want to argue those through very clearly, because the editorial, when it's published, needs to explain to our readers what our position was, what it is now, and why we changed it.
The process is meant to be fairly informal and free-wheeling, but serious and thorough. When we're talking about political endorsements, we do it a bit more formally. On the state and city level, the editorial writers who handle those topics generally talk about each of the candidates and recommend which one to endorse. That choice can be noncontroversial, or it can generate a robust debate. It's particularly hard to choose when we're forced to pick, as we and American voters are all too often, between two candidates that we don't really like all that much.
After the meeting, the managers of the department gather in my office to talk about that day's list of editorials. Our page can accommodate four editorials (and by that I also mean Editorial Observer articles, Editorial Notebooks, Appreciations, Rural, Suburban and City Life pieces and so on). Sometimes we run four, sometimes we run three. On occasion, we'll devote the entire page to one editorial, as we did last Sunday to discuss the presidential candidates' positions on health insurance reform.
The writers then spend their days reporting, researching and writing their pieces. And they do that deeply. When I started working in the editorial department just about four years ago, one of the things that struck me the most was how much reporting goes into writing an editorial. They are not just random opinions. They are opinions based on rich knowledge, broad and deep experience, and in-depth reporting. We try to talk to as many people as possible who are directly involved in an issue, as well as consulting experts and doing research on whatever subject is at hand. Our policy is to call the subject of an editorial before we print it, not because we intend to give them "equal time" to rebut our position, but because it's the fair thing to do. And we want to give people a chance to argue with our conclusions. There have been times in my personal experience as an editorial writer and editor when those conversations have had a significant effect on the editorial's bottom line. In one case, such a conversation led to further discussion and an almost complete reversal of the position we had intended to take.
Once the editorials are finished, they are sent (we say "filed") to a directory in our computer where they will later be edited. At that point, our board members are encouraged to read the final products, and comment on them either to the original author or one of the editors. This give-and-take, like the debates at our morning meetings, is conducted in the spirit of lively but collegial debate.
Editorials are then edited by one of the editors on our staff, which include the deputy editor, the assistant editor, or the associate editor. The goal is to make sure the editorial makes the point it is suposed to make, that the argument is strong and that in general, the piece is well written. We try to work on pieces to which we can bring some special knowledge, but at the end of the day, the Deadline is King, and our editors have to be able to handle just about whatever subject comes their way.
The editorials are then given to a copy editor, who goes through them meticulously, literally word by word, to check for factual accuracy and conformity to Times publishing style. The copy editor cannot change the editorial thrust or position of any piece.
What drives our selection of topics? First, of course, the news. Much of what we editorialize about is based on the events of the day. For some years now, the editorial board has tried to keep the page as fresh and on-the-news as possible. Then there are the interests of the writers themselves, which lead them down all kinds of interesting paths.
Finally, there are issues that the Times editorial board considers of transcendent importance — the nation's security and its global image; the relationship between government and the people, which includes the balance among the branches of our democracy, civil liberties, civil rights, taxation, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and a host of other issues. We are strong believers in the First Amendment (and more faithful to the Second Amendment than our critics believe). We are strong believers in the right to privacy and the associated right to reproductive choice. We are passionate opponents of all forms of authoritarian behavior by the federal government. We believe in free trade and reasonable, progressive taxation. We believe in a robust application of American influence and power, but one that is consistent with our democratic values. And we believe in the right of Americans to cast a vote that counts, and will be accurately recorded.
Those are some of the core values that drive our opinions and our selection of topics.
We do not, as one reader asked, poll our readers or test our ideas online before we write about them. The purpose of the editorial page is to express the collective judgment of the editorial board. We want, and solicit eagerly, our readers' reactions to our editorials, and those reactions can inform our thinking. But the idea is to reach a considered opinion based on principle and reporting, and present it to our readers, not to figure out what we think they may want to hear.
That said, we are deeply interested in constantly enhancing the dialog between The Times and its readers, in creating forums for our readers to express their views in the paper and online, in creating communities of interest on our Web site. This effort involves every part of The Times, but it is of particular interest to the editorial department, where, after all, reader interaction began in the Letters column.
We try to strike a balance of topics on our page. If we feel we've written too much in recent days about electronic eavesdropping or water pollution, we might pass up a chance for another editorial on that topic right away. But we must always balance that with the need to cover the big issues of the day. If a third editorial in a week on Iraq is the right journalistic choice, then we'll do the third editorial.
Reporters from the newsroom have no input into our editorial writing process, or the selection of topics. The responsibility for the final draft that you read in our pages, the ink-covered and pixelated pages, is mine.
We don't pick subjects based on whether we think we'll have an impact on government decisions. We're happy to scream into the wind on important topics. But we do want to influence the public debate, and we will time editorials to events. For instance, if there's a vote coming on a bill that we care about, we'll write an editorial before the vote, hoping to influence a few lawmakers, but also to alert readers to an important event and give them some background about it.
I realize there are a lot of words to read here, and if you got this far, thanks for your patience. There were a lot of interesting questions on this topic to cover, and I hope I did so. If I missed something big, I'm sure you'll let me know.
