Prime
Time for newspapers to reimagine opinion pages
Odoobo C. Bichachi
What you need to know:
For one of the ideas that appealed to me was building a pro-active op-ed space where opinion articles are solicited on a different subject every day.
A few weeks ago, I shared some thoughts on the fate of “letters to the editor,” a hitherto lively and dynamic space now arguably a drab grey, in part because debate has shifted to social media and newspapers have not reinvented the pages.
Some people are beginning to point at newspaper opinion pages as well. “In the age of social media, community members (and journalists alike) now share their perspectives at dizzying speed,” says Kevin Loker, who is leading a conversation in the USA media on how to re-engineer the op-ed space.
Ruing the past, he says: “I grew up reading my local opinion section in print in small-town South Dakota. When I was in middle school, it was a way to access (at least some) views about important issues facing the community and consider what I thought about it all myself.
More than 20 years later, as traditional sources have shrunk or closed, many opinion sections are still roughly the same, even with the ubiquity of opinion online via social media and other platforms. In fact, you could argue these sections have not changed much since they started decades and decades ago — pre-internet, pre-TV, pre-radio,” he concludes.
Loker is the American Press Institute (API) director of strategic partnerships and research. This conversation came into my inbox from API, highlighting the precariousness of opinion journalism in a fast-changing media landscape drowned in digital technology.
So, should the newspapers do something about opinion pages? Why not? “…the structures and practices we’ve had for opinion journalism today don’t have to be the structures and practices we continue to use. We can stop doing things. We can intentionally start doing others,” says Loker.
API shares what some newspaper in the USA are doing to reinvent this space. Editors may wish to follow the conversation taking place there. One of the ideas that appealed to me was building a pro-active op-ed space where opinion articles are solicited on a different subject every day and multiple perspectives shared on the same subject in long and short form, including snapshots from social media.
This would require a lot of work and would differ from the old – and current practice – where newspapers simply wait for what comes into the mailbag or mailbox and publish what they consider to be the best. The idea, therefore, is to create planned debates rather than run random debates.
Of course some space would still be reserved for a few talking-heads (read columnists). Yes, there are many other things that can be tried out, as API suggests, but there should be no illusions that this will be a walk in the park. We all know that newspapers have been struggling to reinvent news for decades with varying success.
READERS HAVE YOUR SAY
My articles not published
I am writing to inquire as to why my articles submitted for publication have not been published yet. The last two sent to [email protected] email did not make it unlike those before. Could the email have changed? Or maybe the criteria of submission? Any information will be greatly appreciated.
-Raymond Amumpaire
Public Editor: I passed your question to the Op-ed editor, Jan Napio, and she explained thus: “Raymond is a regular writer and we always publish him. Unfortunately because the space is limited and competitive, we can’t publish as often as he might like or every time he writes. I do understand his concern. However, we will definitely run the articles when space allows.” I hope this clears the air!
Rwanda or Tutsi genocide?
Why do NMG platforms not rise above politics in relation to reporting on the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994? The East African is particularly “guilty” by continuously writing “genocide against Tutsi” which is a political statement of one side of the Rwanda question.
Independent media should refer to it as “the Rwanda Genocide” because all ethnic groups in Rwanda lost people on both sides of the political divide. Reference to “genocide against Tutsi” should be left to non-independent state media.
-Michael Kasozi
Public Editor: The East African’s bureau chief in Kampala, Nelson Naturinda, explained that this is a conversation they have had internally and use the reference “genocide against Tutsi” because it fits in the dictionary definition of the word. Genocide is usually against a specific group. Tutsi where the community that was primarily targeted. However, it is also correct to say Rwanda genocide.
Send your feedback/complaints to [email protected] or call/text on +256 776 500725.
