"In an era of distrust in the media and confusion over what journalism is, I believe institutions — even ones with a lot of esteemed traditions — better serve their audiences with direct, clear language. We don’t like jargon in our articles; we don’t want it above them, either. A half century ago, Times editors made a bet that readers would appreciate a wider range of opinion. We are making much the same bet, but at a time when the scales of opinion journalism can seem increasingly tilted against the free and the fair, the sober and honest. We work every day to correct that imbalance."
From "Why The New York Times Is Retiring the Term ‘Op-Ed’" by Kathleen Kingsbury, the opinion editor of the NYT.
Was the term "op-ed" unclear? Well, it was misunderstood. The original meaning of the term — coined in 1970 — was that was material on the page that was physically opposite to the editorial page. Even before we all switched to reading on line, the "op" was mistaken as meaning "opinion" or "opposed" in the sense of being the opposite of what the NYT editors believed. On line, the idea of physically opposing pages doesn't apply at all.
The new term is "guest essays." Dull, but not confusing. Just flatfootedly obvious.
Isn't it embarrassing to tout that as "far more inclusive"? Why aren't they more worried that their claims of inclusiveness are backhanded insults to the people they are purporting to include? It reminds me of the argument that law professors should switch to "explicit instruction" to be more inclusive. You're implying that the people you want to include have lower powers of cognition!
***
There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.
Posts
