What is Editorial Journalism?
An editorial is a piece of writing published in a newspaper that reflects the opinion of a majority vote on an issue by the news paper’s editorial board. These opinions are meant to persuade readers and often lead to action.
Research on editorials has attributed their distinctive role to several factors. This article explores the significance attributed to this distinctive practice by theoretical approaches and sociological studies of journalism practices.
It is an opinion maker
Opinion journalism, or editorial writing to the layman, is the juiciest part of the newsroom. It is where the journalist takes an opinion on an existing issue and presents it to readers in the form of a news article, column, or op-ed.
Opinion writing is the best way for journalists to inform their readers, and it also allows for an opportunity for writers to explore topics that they may not have covered in the newsroom. It is also a great way for editors to find and bring to light talent they might not otherwise have discovered.
A good editorial is the perfect balance of opinion and fact. It is an objective analysis of a specific topic and makes a case for a particular course of action.
It is also a well-crafted piece of writing that evokes a response in the reader, whether that be for information, entertainment or both.
A good editorial is like the best dress in a woman’s closet: it must be original. This means it must tell a story that has not already been told, or be a re-telling of the same news in a new and interesting way.
It is reconciliatory
Editorial journalism is the art of crafting news stories that are not only compelling, but that also address a problem. It is an important part of the role of journalists in a society that has been fractured by social conflicts, especially when those problems involve racial or ethnic identity, colonization or oppression.
It is a difficult thing to do well, and it takes a lot of work. But it is an essential way for people who have been unable to reach an understanding about an issue to overcome that barrier. It helps the people who are involved in a conflict to get their emotions and other wounds sorted out. It is also an essential component of the progress toward dramatic and non-incremental public policy changes that are necessary to move us toward a better world, one in which we are all equal and able to live and work together in peace.
A good editorial will be a product of a great deal of research, analysis and debate. It will also be a product of careful consideration and the use of facts and figures that are accurate, reliable and well-documented.
Moreover, it should be a product of an enlightened and unbiased view. This is especially true of a piece that addresses a complex and long-standing problem like racism, which has been a defining characteristic of the United States for decades.
In the context of a political dispute, a reconciliation process may be a good way to deal with a deeply entrenched problem, such as discrimination against immigrants or the legacy of apartheid in South Africa. It may also be a way to deal with a less obvious but equally debilitating problem, such as a history of systematic violence that has harmed all the people in a community or country.
In most societies, however, it is not possible to achieve a complete resolution of all the problems that have been dividing parties and creating deep social divisions. A scalar concept like reconciliation is not a sufficient solution to that kind of problem, because the type and intensity of improvement that is necessary for a party to qualify as reconciled depends on the relationship between the parties in question, the nature of the problems that have divided them, and the extent to which those problems are rooted in enduring social and political systems. This is why reconciliation is such an important and complex concept to understand.
It is balanced
Editorial journalism is a distinct genre of journalism, distinguished from fact-based news reporting by the daily presence of opinion articles on the editorial page. In contrast to news columns that present facts fairly and objectively, editorials often comment on or analyze the arguments presented in a particular article.
The separation of fact and opinion is a professional journalistic norm that is enforced by news organizations in order to ensure that their audiences do not become misinformed about a story. This goal is particularly important in an era of fake news and social media, as readers may be less likely to read or follow content that does not provide accurate information or points of view.
In the realm of political reporting, this ideal is a cherished tenet, as evidenced by the Washington Post’s reverence for “balance” in its coverage of political news stories. However, the practice of false balance – in which journalists present each side of a debate as equally credible, even when there is heavy factual stacking on one side – has become an unpopular target for critics who argue that it distorts the public’s understanding of news events.
False balance also exacerbates the institutionalised preference for elite sources and omits a broad range of perspectives on important issues. As a consequence, the general public is often left with an inaccurate view of events, and this can affect citizens’ decision-making processes as well as their ability to participate in democracy.
On a personal note, I am a strong proponent of the idea that journalists should present all sides of an issue without supporting bias. This is especially true of controversial topics such as healthcare reform, which requires a robust debate for it to be successful.
As a result, I have been very careful to present balanced views on this topic. This means not only presenting both sides of the story, but also making sure that all facts are given equal time and that the different views are accurately represented.
Although this is a very reasonable approach to take, I have often encountered reporters who prioritize balance over accuracy and truth-extraction. For example, I have seen reporters inflate the number of people killed in terrorist attacks or present biased opinions on a particular political topic to make it more interesting and relevant for their audience. This type of false balance is not only unethical, it is also detrimental to the public’s understanding of the news.
It is crusading
Crusading was a series of military expeditions organized by the medieval popes and Christian western powers to take Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Moslem control. There were eight major official crusades between 1095 and 1270, as well as many more unofficial ones.
The first of these expeditions was initiated by Pope Urban II in the year 1095. It was a response to a call from eastern Christians for help in defeating the Muslims who were oppressing their holy city of Jerusalem. The emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Alexios I Komnenos, was also concerned about the spread of Islam in his region and was looking for ways to gain western military aid.
In the end, this first crusade was not a success but was nevertheless a significant turning point in the Church’s foreign policy. It signalled the move from denouncing war to advocating it as a means of salvation.
Yet, it is also worth asking how such a dramatic shift came about, from promoting peace to demanding war in the name of religion. It is a question that will continue to be debated in the centuries to come, as the history of the Crusades reveals.
By the mid eleventh century, Islam had already spread far and wide across much of Asia, including Baghdad. The Byzantines were particularly alarmed by the arrival of a powerful new Muslim force, the Seljuk Turks.
The seductive mix of politics, religion and violence which accompanied the first crusade was the spark that set off all future campaigns. Byzantines feared that the Seljuks were not only taking over their own lands but were threatening to turn the entire region into a Muslim empire, in which Christianity would have no place.
As it turned out, the Byzantines were right to be concerned. Their fears were not exaggerated, and they were proven correct when the Seljuks invaded Europe and seized most of the Holy Lands by 1187 CE.
At the same time, the Byzantines were forced to deal with the fact that their fellow Christians in Europe had been unable to protect them against these invasions, and many of those who fought for their countries found themselves betrayed by their own leaders. It was these plights which drove the second crusade, which began in 1228 and was led by Frederick II, a man who was not merely the most renowned of his day but also one with great diplomatic finesse.
