A Knight in Dragonland

Nov 26 2006

Daily Times Dresses Down Both Mangan & 108 Board

The Opinion page of the Daily Times weekend edition has an unsigned editorial entitled “Consolidation controversy arises again.” I have to agree with Bill Dennis regarding unsigned editorials in the mainstream media … I’m not a fan. At a paper as small as the Daily Times, it seems especially silly. Come on, guys … which one of you wrote this? Let’s see … our options are (1) Rick Wade, (2) Michelle Teheux or (3) both collaborating. I won’t complain too much since I happen to agree with the content of this particular unsigned editorial … and I suppose I don’t have much room to talk, since I’m blogging anonymously. Heh.

The Times editors use the piece to dress down both the 108 board for ignoring the results of the consolidation referendum AND Jim Mangan for his negative smear campaign. The charges are fair, in my opinion.

I do question whether those voting for the referendum were adequately informed, especially when the DISinformation campaign of the Citizens for Pekin School Consolidation was the most prominent view out there. More people need to read my blog, obviously. (Laughing). However, democracy - although imperfect - is unquestionably the best form of government. The referendum passed by a substantial margin, so the board should certainly respect that result and diligently investigate the possibility of consolidation.

The editorial agrees with my view (scroll down toward the end and look for PAST) that the information we have to this point - the “clear evidence” of consolidation’s value to the taxpayers that Mangan claims to have - is of little value:

The only way for the districts to settle this question is to gather new information, and not use what has been already gathered in past studies or put forth by consolidation supporters.

Pekin is moving into uncharted territory in regard to our options under the state’s recently passed new school consolidation law.

Nobody knows for sure what would happen - for the taxpayers, for the students, teachers or administrators - if the two districts were to consolidate.

The Daily Times offers Midwest Central Community Unit District 191 centered in Manito as a local example of consolidation. However, 191 is the kind of rural district that has utilized consolidation to continue service in the face of shrinking student populations. The situation with 108 & 303 is unique. If only 108 & 303 consolidate, then the residents of other feeder districts would essentially be paying taxes to support Pekin students in 108 at the same time they are paying to support local grade schools in their own districts. Unless ALL of the feeder districts consolidate with 303 - something none of the other districts have shown any interest in - then it sets up an unfair double taxation policy. It’s a complicated issue, and I’m not sure how much looking at District 191 will help.

The Times offers a solution to the dilemma that would take some of the heat off the school boards and administrators:

What about creating a blue-ribbon panel of local business and industry leaders, professionals and entrepreneurs and non-school board elected and appointed officials, with a specific mandate and deadline?

Not a bad idea. Can I be on it? Hehehehe.

Such a group would need to be of necessity independent and neutral, in order to quell the suspicions of consolidation supporters or those who oppose it.

Hmmmm … I guess that counts me out. Thankfully it also counts out Mangan, Bacon & Noyes. I can’t be neutral on this issue. I want what’s best for the students of Pekin, and I think Mangan’s plan is a needless distraction wasting time, money & effort while ignoring the real problems facing the district.

My favorite part of the editorial is this:

To achieve anything other than a stalemate or, even worse, a debacle, all the energy being wasted in negativity and name-calling must be harnessed so education reform in Pekin can move forward.

If we don’t, the future for our community won’t be as bright as it could be.

Did you hear that, Mr. Mangan?

District 108, District 303, District Consolidation, Education, Mangan, Pekin Politics | Knight in Dragonland | 26 November 2006 |

12 Comments

By Michelle Teheux, November 27, 2006 @ 1:50 am

Please allow me to clear up a common misconception here. All editorials are unsigned for a very good reason. Who could sign an editorial, when it isn’t any one person’s opinion? Instead, an editorial represents the official opinion of the newspaper. All three members of the editorial board collaborate on what the newspaper’s official stance should be, and all three members read and have input on the final form of the editorial. This is in complete contrast to opinion columns, which DO represent one person’s opinion, and which ARE attributed to one individual. We list the three members of the editorial board at the top left of the page, but you shouldn’t assume any one of them had his or her complete way with the editorial. (If any editorial board member at any newspaper tried to insist on having his or her opinion alone be considered the official stance of the newspaper, I guess that person wouldn’t last in the business too long).

I guess we could place little notes in the text of editorials, like: (this next bit is Rick’s opinion) and then (but this opposing viewpoint is Michelle’s) and then (this ending is purely Gregg’s idea, and Michelle and Rick don’t agree with it at all, but in the spirit of compromise we’re going with it). A bit silly, don’t you think?

I am not familiar with Bill Dennis’ opinion on this, but he certainly should know better than to disparage the unsigned editorial. He was a journalism major at EIU and unless he wasn’t paying attention at all he ought to understand how editorial boards work. I excuse the general public for not understanding this, but if what you say is true, come on, Bill!
By knightindragonland, November 27, 2006 @ 5:06 am

Ooops … I forgot to include Gregg Ratliff, the publisher, on my list of Times editors. Maybe he should post here, then I would definitely remember (”subtle” hint).

Regarding the Peoria Pundit’s beef with the unsigned editorial - in Bill’s post about the subject, he quotes and links to a BuzzMachine post that says unsigned editorials “attempt to speak as the voices of institutions, issuing opinions as if from the mountaintop. But today, we do not trust institutions. We are impatient with lectures. We demand to speak eye-to-eye as humans. We require conversation.”

Bill obviously has problems with the JS editorial board in general and frequently disagrees with them. I believe he referred to Mike Bailey as a Luddite, and often refers to the writers of their unsigned editorials as “nameless gnomes.” You’d have to ask him exactly what his beef might be.

I understand and appreciate your points, Michelle. I guess I just wonder why you can’t put up a “poster board” with a topic and each write your own opinion instead of trying to homogenize your views into a cohesive whole. I will say that in this particular case it works well. The end product is balanced and fair and offers some interesting ideas. I suppose one could argue that finding a consensus is what democracy is all about - forging a cohesive, workable whole from disparate opinions.

Thanks for your comments, Michelle.
By Billy Dennis, November 27, 2006 @ 6:00 am

Michelle: My dislike of the unsigned editorial is evident in posts throughout my blog.

But I suppose the best single post that spells out the reasons for my opinion is this one.

Eastern Illinois University is a fine school, and I would recommend its journalism department over any other in the state because it offers more hands-on training in a daily newspaper/television/radio environment than any other in the state.

You can be assured that I left EIU knowing full well how editorial boards work. They work badly, and at the Daily Eastern News it worked closer to the way they are supposed to work than any other newspaper for which I have worked. The idea that a group of people could or would be selected to decide the “view of the institution” is at best a noble theory, but not one that often works in real life. In the real world, we have editorial boards chosen not because they reflect the view of entire paper, but those who reflect the views of the owner (should be paper be owned by real humans instead of a corporation) or the views of the people who run the paper.

I’ve never been on a member of an editorial board in which minority views among board members were tolerated.

And there’s this whole “opinion of the institution thing.” What a joke. The entire the Pekin Daily Times is NOT represented by the three-person editorial board. If the circulation department represented? The ad department? The cleaning crew? I doubt that if the majority of the news staff were polled, on most days, most would take issue with that day’s editorial.

And do you really want us to believe that every single word that appears in an unsigned editorial is the group opinion of your editorial board? Did your three-member editorial board really decide who endorse for president? For governor? Really? What were the votes?

And consider for a moment how this concept plays with the general public, most of whom do not benefit from a j-school education. All they see is that this big institution is telling them what they should think.

What is the benefit of an unsigned editorial? None that I can see, other than it perpetuates the idea that the editorial opinion is the voice of the institution and thus is supposed to carry more strength. In fact the opposite is true. In fact, the unsigned editorial is becoming increasingly in disrepute, as news consumers are demanding more transparency, not less, from the news media.

How ironic that the mainstream media argues for continuing a policy that keeps readers less informed about news and opinion is presented. The Pekin Daily Times would not tolerate a government or any powerful institution that tried to keep the public less informed, yet it argues in favor of its policy of doing the exact same thing.

Unsigned editorials hide responsibility for the written words that appear in the newspaper. Individuals have biases. All of them. They can be addressed, in the open, or their can be hidden in an attempt to pretend they do not exist.
By knightindragonland, November 27, 2006 @ 6:10 am

There ya go. I kinda figured he wouldn’t pass this one by.
By Billy Dennis, November 27, 2006 @ 6:25 am

Well … anyone in Peoria can tell you about my massive ego.
By knightindragonland, November 27, 2006 @ 6:45 am

Michelle, you may respond if you wish - although unlike Bill & I, you’re probably sensibly in bed by now. Otherwise, while this truly has been an interesting conversation regarding unsigned editorials … YOU GUYS ARE HIJACKING MY TOPIC!!! (Composing myself). Anyone have anything to say about Pekin school consolidation? PLEASE???
By rick, January 11, 2007 @ 2:53 am

Come on, guys. Unsigned editorials are written on the OPINION page. They are OPINIONS. They are not attempts at mind control. They are designed to stimulate dialog between citizens via the newspaper. It’s a public forum. Get a job at a real news organization, then come to me and whine about unsigned editorials.
By knightindragonland, January 11, 2007 @ 6:44 am

And a month and a half later, Mr. Wade graces us with his illustrious presence.

I’m shocked that you haven’t taken this opportunity to call me a coward for the third time in a single day. Of course you still manage to be arrogant and condescending. You do that well, at least.

I’m not trying to be a “news organization.” This blog consists of my opinion. That’s the entire purpose of its existence. I’m not trying to muscle in on your territory, so quit trying to get in a pissing match.
By rick, January 11, 2007 @ 3:13 pm

Sorry, I have a job and a family that takes up most of my attention so I don’t always get to see who you are slandering every day.
By Mandy, January 12, 2007 @ 3:15 am

Really, who gives a crap what the 3 person editorial board at the Pekin Daily Times has to say? I would assume that the people that read the paper and the non-fluff pieces are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions and don’t sit on the edge of their seat waiting for the paper’s opinion on something so they can make up their own mind. How about reporting the facts and leave it at that? I don’t care if their names are attatched or not. The problem with reporters is that they think the public is too stupid to form an opinion on their own and try to shove it down peoples throats. And Rick, you are behaving like a jackass on this blog and on Bill’s. Grow up.
By vaspers the grate, January 12, 2007 @ 2:08 pm

unsigned editorials are BS and just another example of why the mainstream media is dying and their rotting sewage is stinking.

the MSM is morbid, dishonest, and biased toward gloom and cowardice coddling.
By rick wade, February 14, 2007 @ 1:25 am

Mandy: Hee haw! Hee haw! Obviously there is a village out there somewhere missing an idiot. Hopefully, they read this blog so they will know where you are at.