Editorial pages must change to help save journalism: blow up the ivory tower: kill the unsigned editorial.

Mainstream American journalists, including the most-aware editorial page editors, sense a shipwreck ahead. They feel sickened as they watch traditional readers, viewers, and listeners disappear beneath a sea change of media use and media expectations.

So what does this mean for editorial page editors and writers?

Very simply, change or die.

It's not that today's editorial pages aren't good. By the long-accepted standards used by newspapers to ascertain quality work, editorial pages may be better today than they have ever been: more local commentary, good writing, a lively mix of well-known political commentators.

But it's not good enough to simply get better at what worked in the past. No, the challenge today for editorial pages and their staffs is to be good at what audiences want in 2010--and beyond.

The year 2010 will be the watershed year. That's the year the Baby Boomers officially relinquish their role as the dominant cultural and political cohort in America. Beginning in 2010, and forever more, the generation that currently supervises most newsroom and editorial boards will begin a steep decline in influence. Gen Y, the next generation of news consumers, citizens, and journalists, will be in the ascent.

And their worldview and media expectations will be profoundly different from what many newspaper editorial pages offer today. To meet those expectations twenty-first-century editorial pages must be different in three essential ways:

* Different mix of people. That means younger people. No more using the editorial board as a place to reward/plant/retire earlier generations of editors from other departments. No more pages dominated by old warhorses from the Vietnam Era, Watergate Era, or even Civil Rights Era. That's ancient history. Today's editorial staffs and worldview must look ahead to the stories, concerns, and challenges of a twenty-first-century generation. Yes, there is value of maintaining some institutional memory and wisdom from earlier eras on the editorial pages--and throughout the newsroom. But the world is looking forward, and speeding up, and editorial pages, and the entire newsroom, must do the same.

* Different technology and delivery. Forget the fifteen-inch unsigned editorial. It's passe, if not dead. To succeed in the twenty-first century, pages need to start from scratch and build a package of commentary and opinion that shares its messages through digital tools that will dominate media in the decade ahead. This means daily podcasts, text messages to cell phones, video commentary, and a Facebook strategy.

* Different relationship to community. Blow up the ivory tower and ban the editorial "we." It's not about the anonymous editorial boards dictating to the community anymore. That's over. In the twenty-first century, the key to influencing the public and political process will depend on how well editorial boards engage a fractured, diverse, and often uninterested collection of community interests. The next editorial page editor should take a note from TV evangelists and the best online bloggers. Editorial page editors must be personalities, provocateurs, and preachers for the First Amendment. They are alternately engaging and inspiring and always seeking community feedback. The words and opinions offered up need to be quickly and routinely critiqued by the community.

What happens when you put this all together? Here's a peek at the next editorial board nested inside the next newsroom.

The desks increasingly will be occupied by young, Web-savvy personalities--who aren't there much. No more will the editorial board be chained to the telephone.

Instead, the editorial board is out and about at listening posts set up in coffee shops, schools, and retirement centers.

Back in the office, the workday for the editorial board involves hosting online conversations, blogging, and tapping into social networks to gather feedback and convene community discussions.

And, the opinion writers work directly with citizen contributors. Together, they help shape the master narratives of what the community, or various communities of interest, can do to empower, not discourage, those who live in a place.

It must be that different. Change or die.

Why continue anonymous editorials?

A lively discussion ensues by NCEW members

EDITOR'S NOTE: Jim Boren of the The Fresno Bee touched off a fascinating, if occasionally flinty list-serve discussion that inspired this issue's theme. Here is his post and a small sampling of the comments:

A news editor asked me why we should have "anonymous editorials" that purport to speak for every employee of our newspaper. The suggestion is that editorials, as the institutional voice of the paper, are so last century. Why not have plenty of opinion material signed by individuals and do away with editorials entirely?

Karen Nolan, The Reporter, Vacaville, California: I thought editorials spoke for the publisher--you know, the person who buys ink by the barrel--and not every employee of the newspaper. But then, I've mostly worked for family-owned newspapers.

Mary Pitman Kitch, The Oregonian: Because the paper can still do great good by wrestling with an issue and speaking with one voice on it. An individual can speak up, too, certainly, but an individual's voice doesn't carry as much force for good. It's that simple.

Dick Hughes, The Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon: The editorials don't purport to speak for every employee, only the editorial board. Why have city council votes? Or endorsements/recommendations by the local Chamber of Commerce? Or any group decisions? There is a role for a group, or institutional, opinion on the matters at hand.

Ed Williams, The Charlotte Observer: I'm not suggesting a bias here, but it does seem a bit like asking Hugh Hefner if we should do away with nude photos.

Pete Kohler, Cablevision: This discussion reminds me of a time back in the late 1980s when I was working as an executive in the broadcast group of a big media company, best known for its newspapers. The broadcast business was in a slump at the time, related to a recession as I recall. As the corporate staff visited with station general managers asked to make big budget cuts, three stations all came up with the same solution: they would eliminate editorials. At the time, two big market stations and one smaller station had editorial directors, and each scheduled editorials frequently. What continues to amaze me about the experience is that no one questioned what might be lost in doing away with editorials. Of course, broadcasters never had the editorial tradition of newspapers. But no one could come up with a business reason--myself included--for continuing editorials (though in one case the very capable editorial spokesman for one of the bigger stations was reassigned to run public affairs programming). My guess is the same business logic could apply to newspapers as well. Editorial writers need to keep asking whether they are bringing value to the business that employs them. We don't sell ads. It's hard to say that editorials improve circulation/ penetration. But editorial writers do represent costs.

Doug MacEachern, The Arizona Republic: My guess is that editorials will cease being a valuable tool for the newspaper and its community when the procession of mayors, other politicians, advocacy groups, neighborhood activists, Washington lobbyists, and individuals with really interesting ideas stop knocking on our door asking us to take up their causes. Until then I'm just going to assume that they know something that news editors who want to turn edit pages into blogs don't.

Royal Calkins, The Monterey County Herald: Among my many fears is that with the dumbing down of the local news reports because of shrinking newsrooms, readers will have less and less reason to believe that "we" know what we're talking about in editorials. And in a bit of a tangent, how many of us are comfortable these days with the quality of the research that goes into endorsements for local political offices, especially school boards and other special district seats? (And, BTW, who told young reporters that stories on local elections are supposed to be insipid?) Soon, if it is not so already, our more astute readers will be reading editorials merely for entertainment, not enlightenment.

Alan Cochrum, Fort Worth Star-Telegram: On the other (more cynical) hand, a subscriber who reads us merely for entertainment makes Circulation just as happy as one who reads us for enlightenment.

Susan Parker, The Daily Times, Salisbury, Maryland: The important thing about unsigned editorials is that they reflect the input of several people, not necessarily just the writer. If I had to sign editorials I write, often my name would be attached to opinions with which I disagree to varying degrees. I find the input to be valuable. Sometimes I learn aspects of an issue I never would have considered on my own. Occasionally I change my mind after a good discussion with other editors. They're not passe, and it should be clear to any reader that the "our view" or whatever it's called is a group compilation or consensus.