AnnArbor.com - editorial board's massive, epic fail

From a comment:

"The situation is akin to naming Gaddafi to serve as a judge on a war crimes tribunal."

That one had me laughing pretty hard. Touche.

 

The opposite of a fail is a win.

 

Many general statements have been made about how offensive this is. However, I'm wondering if anyone can articulate a more detailed response as to why you all find this so inappropriate.

Editorial boards are by their very nature biased. Many a media mogul has purchased a newspaper with the goal of spouting his view along the leftside of the op-ed page. No matter your political leanings, you should be skeptical about anything an editorial board writes, whether by the NYT or WSJ-they clearly have a point of view. As long as the editorial board has no say over the editorial content of the rest of the paper, this should not compromise objectivity.

Second, even if you expect higher standards from the editorial board, why do so many of you assume having him on the board will make it biased? Anytime you're writing a news story, you go to both sides and get their "spin"-it's your job to take account of their biases and evaluate the situation on its merits. Presumably, a good editorial writer would want to talk to parties on both sides of an issue, too. As long as he is not voting on U-M related issues-which, admittedly, include many issues in AA-what is the difference between just having him at the meeting and calling him on the phone each week to get his take? Without knowing the other members of the editorial board, why are we so quick to assume they will not be able to properly weigh the bias inherent in his POV.

All that said, there may still be a problem with this arrangement. I'm just not sure it's as clear a situation as it has so far been made out to be. I have no real interest in the matter-just figured someone had to at least try to make an argument for the other side.

<Edited: For typo>

 

My issue would be the UM guy has a history of putting up roadblocks to legitimate requests for information. Members of an editorial board should be in favor of a society where information is readily available.

 

Valid point. I take it, though, that many people still would seem to have a problem with this if Michigan was relatively transparent and forthcoming when information would be requested.

 

Really?

Success and failure are linked all the time in speech.

On the Internet, failure now = fail. So, success = succeed.

And, you're telling me the opposite of a win is a fail? Not a ... lose? Or a loss? Or a loose?

But, OK, whatever. Just having a little fun here with massive, epic trendy.

 

But Michigan wasn't. Your USS Hypothetical ship just sank in the dock.

 

I wish to subscribe to your (online-only) newsletter.

 

Call now. Operators are standing by. Order in the next 30 minutes and receive the 2011 (online-only) fleece.

 

Not really. That is one point-albeit a big one-on which he disagrees with the editorial board. I'm sure there are many other matters on which the views of individual members differ from the view of the paper as a whole. There are plus and minuses to having each of those members on the board.

Further, aside from philosophic differences, I'm not sure there's any practical implications to adding him to the board despite his past conduct. Compare this situation to the counter-factual: Is he any likely to become less transparent after joining the board than he would be not being on the board? For all we know, he may become more transparent because he develops a better relationship with members of the paper.

Does one freeze out a side in a story you are writing because that side has not been transparent in the past? No-again, you evaluate the bias represented by that conduct when judging how much weight to give that side's argument.

 

Point well taken.

 

Can someone explain the need for an editorial board? So the publisher/EIC can co-opt influential pals? To flat our curry favor among local bigshots? Anyone?