So it was with no small measure of surprise that I read his take-down of the increasingly worthless Houston Chronicle Editorial Board yesterday evening.
Chronicle Editorial Board criticism about housing decision is off-base. Sylvester Turner, HoustonChronicle.com
I do, however, have a big problem with an institution that does not reflect the diversity of this city publishing a lecture on race and class that does not elevate all children, regardless of where they live.
...
We have a lot more work to do on this long journey to equality, to be sure - but the Houston Chronicle editorial board needs to reset its perspective. A good first step would be to increase diversity on the editorial board so that it looks more like Houston and has greater access to the diversity of life experiences that the majority of Houston knows.
Of course Turner, who is a very institutional "status quo" type of guy, not being one to call for huge change, seeks to reform (in his view) rather than do anything groundbreaking. Based on that foundation his call for the "diversification" of the Gang of Idiots makes sense. He also is one who believes that diversity for diversity's sake is a solution. It's important to note that, when he mentions 'diversity' Turner is referring to physical, rather than mental diversity. The former is prized while the latter is demonized.
Most intelligent thinkers, and leaders, understand that diversity is a worthy goal, but should not be pursued to the exclusion of results. From that perspective, the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board has not produced successful results in quite some time and is a horrid waste of resources at the paper. Their tone-deafness to this issue, an issue where I agree with Turner FWIW, putting affordable housing in that neighborhood is ridiculous given the cost, and their total disconnect from Houston's citizenry make it clear that they've outlived their usefulness.
Turner got a slight hit against them, but a KO blow would have been a call for the shuttering of the board (including, the angry doodler and most of the political columnists) in favor of increased staffing on the news desks.
And while it's possible that a truly diverse editorial board, one including say, Bill King, Mustafa Tameez and Gina Gaston (as an example, I doubt any of these three would be interested) MIGHT do a better job penning opinions that matter to Houstonians they would still be operating under an outdated model of news-gathering.
In the "good old days" almost everyone in America got their news from a newspaper. They also got political and election advice from media barons who had no qualms about openly revealing their political leanings in their publication. Amazingly, partly because they had no real competition, this so-called "yellow" journalism is now considered the golden age of the newspaper. But something happened on the road to irrelevance, the media decided that they needed to portray themselves as "impartial" despite not being so and trust in them began to erode. The media barons gave way to corporations and the news became a profit center.
Then came the Internet, and suddenly every half-assed moron with a keyboard and the ability to (barely) string a sentence together became an unabashed expert on everything*, suddenly the media, and especially, unsigned editorials didn't matter as much. The media doubled-down on their "neither left or right" fallacy and public trust continued to erode. Circulation dropped, online portals were created and 'page hits' became the goal increasingly pushing out hard news stories.
Then the cuts came, and came, and a lot of solid, hard news reporters found themselves staring at the unpleasant reality of unemployment that really had not been an issue before. Those who could, jumped ship and either became spokespersons for government officials or government departments. or they jumped over to the dark-side and stopped worrying and came to love the Internet (news sites). The (mostly good) rank-and-file reporters that are still employed at the hulking beasts find themselves under-equipped, under-staffed and running on low morale. Investigative news is rapidly going away, being outsourced to independent shops and local news channels.
But the unsigned editorial still remains, shining like a black light that highlights all of the goo on the walls of the meeting room. It's a relic, it needs to go, and newspapers need to focus on the core job that they've always promised they would never stop doing. Reporting the news.
It would be better, for them, however if they just gave up and admitted that they were doing so from whatever political perspective they choose. It might even help them get some trust back.
*Yes, I'm self-describing there, except for the "string a sentence together" nonsense, an area where I clearly struggle. Half-assed moron though? Guilty.
