I Read It in the Paper

Unlike many of you seasoned bloggers out there, I still read a printed newspaper almost every day. One reason is that the writing is done by professionals, and accordingly, is generally higher quality in terms of grammar and style. Additionally, editors filter the content to eliminate, or at least to reduce, the tedious, the boring, the idiotic, and the frivolous.
Finally, old habits are the hardest to break; I know that I could get the same material from the newspaper's web site, but I can read the paper in places where I don't generally take my desktop computer.

One of my favorite sections is the editorial pages. They are a good mix of professional writing and amateur writing (in the letters to the editor). I see a reasonably broad spectrum of opinion, and I am occasionally treated to a fine example of irony.

When I read the editiorials, I first look for a title that 'grabs' me. Then I read the editorial itself. Finally I look to see who wrote the item. On several occasions, I have found myself reading an exceptionally fine editorial in the Los Angeles Times Opinion section. The writer would examine a situation from several different points of view, and try to see how those views relate to the situation of the persons who may hold them. He would suggest the possible outcomes of different alternative actions, and weigh the potential benefits or consequences of the actions. Several of these exceptionally fine editorials were authored by an editor named Michael Kinsley.

It turns out that Mr. Kinsley was the editor of the Opinion section of the Times for a little over a year, until he was let go about a year ago. He is now the American Editor of The Guardian in London. His departure was a direct result of the purchase of the LA Times from the Chandler family by the Tribune Company of Chicago. His editorial in this Sunday's Opinion section was the first of his to appear since he left.

The editorial I refer to is entitled 'Where does the Times go?' But it is not the bitter vituperation of a disgruntled ex-employee. Sure, Kinsley speculates about the possible reason for his dismissal, but he is able to see the event as it relates to the takeover by the Tribune Co. He even points out the logic of the company in making the staff cuts. The real thrust of Kinsley's article is expressed in the title. He proposes that a paper of the quality of the Times should become a national newspaper, of equal or greater influence than the New York Times, the Washington Post, or USA Today. And he suggests some steps that the Tribune Co. should take to accomplish that. The editorial is a fine example of high quality writing.

For those of you who do not bother with printed newspapers, I have posted a link to his most recent piece in the LA Times on line. Check it out for yourself, and you will see what I mean.