The current editor of The Grand Rapids Press, Paul Keep, likes to write a column. There’s nothing wrong with that; when I was editor of the Western Herald, back when it published broadsheet four times per week, I did the same.

When the EIC writes columns, he begins from a privileged position as the authoritative voice of the franchise; this perception creates the political reality that editors have far less leeway than ordinary columnists to skirt the argumentative margin. I learned quickly that when the editor in chief speaks, people take notice. In one memorable incident, early in my tenure in the Big Office, I wrote a parenthetical aside about the aggressive issuance of parking tickets by local law enforcement. This bit of snark prompted an angry letter from the director of parking services, who vented his frustration with a remarkable lack of nuance and saw fit to include my history of parking tickets in his missive. (I published his letter, unredacted.)

When I wrote about the parking tickets, I wasn’t deliberately grinding an ax. I saw something that resonated, and I wrote on it, although in retrospect I should have exercised greater foresight. The response from the parking police, and the corresponding uproar associated with the director’s letter, drove home a very important point: The bad blood that flows from the unnecessary cuts and stabs inflicted by the local press never serves a public good. Don’t demean or belittle your readers — even a segment of them — simply under the guise of “it’s my opinion.” When editors write, the column isn’t just another throw-away piece of opinion filler — it’s a position statement by the newspaper itself, byline be damned.

Which brings me to Mr. Keep.

In today’s issue of The Press, Keep wrote a column headlined, “Whatever happened to welcoming a different view?” His core thesis seems to be that the great unwashed masses of Grand Rapids refuse — wait. Let Keep speak for himself: “Oh, but I forgot, you don’t want to hear words you disagree with. Sorry.”

He laments the intellectual decline of his readers: “I remember a time when people would read a newspaper, and consume other media, specifically to seek varying opinions as they formed and adjusted their own views as new information emerged. This doesn’t seem to be the case as much now. I hear, in increasing numbers, from readers who are rather upset that something they do not agree with was put into the pages of The Grand Rapids Press. How dare we?”

There is a temptation to look at letter writers and assume that they speak for the readership — that if 10 letters are for something, and five against, then the community must roughly stand 2:1 in favor. Absent from Keep’s analysis is any glimmer of recognition that folks who write letters to the editor are a rare breed. Sometimes cranks, sometimes passionate about something, sometimes directed by advocacy groups, but rarely representative of the community at large.

He goes on to criticize one unnamed reader who asserts that the paper has an unwelcome political slant: “This reader would rather ban The Press from his home than encounter a diverging viewpoint amid a wealth of local news, information and advertising.”

After the paint-by-numbers illustration that extremists on the political right and the political left think the newspaper is slanted, Keep says that “I guess that puts us squarely in the middle, where our newsgathering belongs.” Except that it doesn’t; reader interaction from the poles rarely speaks to community consensus. There is a slick evasion that if the Left and the Right hate you, then you must be doing something correctly. However, it’s entirely possible that both poles hate you simply because you suck. And it’s disingenuous to claim that because you receive hate mail from both poles, you must therefore rest in the center. Keep’s general reaction to readers who voice disapproval of a perceived ideological tone is simultaneously sophomoric in its analysis and dismissive of the complainant.

But it’s not just one column that fluffs my dander. I read all of his other bylined opinion pieces that have been pushed to MLive.com in 2011. Here are some observations about each:

• Editor answers reader questions about NASCAR, book reviews (2/27) … This was a Q&A response to reader emails. Tone and content were appropriate and helpful.
• Should we be more curious about the larger world we live in?(2/20) … Keep wrote about reader reactions to one of his news stories, and in so doing, indicated that “the nature of the comments tended to reveal a lack of accurate information and world knowledge” (there were 16 total comments as of this posting). He also noted that the commenters “weren’t really understanding what [a visiting speaker] said, but they were reacting to it anyway.” The entire column was premised on the idea that West Michigan readers are a parochial lot: “… [M]ore of my fellow Grand Rapids-area residents should have attended the talk, and others like it, because they have a lot to learn, too.”
• Grand Rapids Press carriers pull out all the stops to deliver papers in blizzard (2/13) … This was a feel-good story about how hard the newsroom and circulation drivers worked during February’s blizzard, with ample marketing of the newspaper’s electronic edition.
• Census information is imperfect, but extremely useful (2/6) … Marketing story about the newspaper’s planned year-long series on local census results.
• Reader questions include The Press on Kindle and President Obama not on front page (1/30) … As part of Q&A with readers, Keep notes: “Because we strive to tell all sides of a story, we usually get in hot water with people who only want to hear their side.”
• Press launches 3 new initiatives (1/23) … Marketing story about the newspaper’s planned future enhancements.
• Arizona shooting coverage demonstrates Press’ web-first plan in action (1/16) … More marketing material. Keep says, in reference to the paper’s coverage of the Tucson shootings: “So with the new tools the Internet provides us, we gave our readers far more than the stories and photos they expect in print. We added updates throughout the day that included fresh angles from our reporters, reader comments to debate and a podcast discussion to enlighten.” Trumpeting your coverage of a tragedy seems a bit ghoulish.

So, for the year to date, we have one really good reader-interaction column, four “look how great we are” marketing columns, and three columns that imply that readers are dolts.

Keep is free to write whatever he wishes, but as a matter of editorial judgement, repeatedly belittling the intellectual competence of your readership is a counter-intuitive customer relationship strategy.

The power of the press differs from the power of guns or muscles or money: A well-turned essay can reduce despots to exile, motivate communities to action, or give voice to the voiceless. A single photo, news story or jeremiad can change the course of human history. Words mean things.

Keep’s columns present an object lesson in customer alienation. When you spend your time hyping your own product in a way that demonstrates a negative perception about some undefined segment of your target market, the proper (and eminently predictable) reaction by the more sophisticated members of that market is to seek an alternative vendor.  

The Grand Rapids Press serves a valuable role for the people of West Michigan. Reasonable people can — and will, at length — differ on whether the paper’s coverage is too liberal or too conservative or really excellent or merely pedestrian. Every newspaper in the world is on the receiving end of similar commentary. The best way for an editor to engage with his market is to, above all else, avoid the first harm of treating your readers like fodder for holier-than-thou opinion pieces or as unpaid testamonials you can use to show your greatness.

Mr. Keep, you have a good franchise at your command. Please don’t sully it by denigrating the intellectual merit of the people of Grand Rapids.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---