Dissents: useful or useless?

A newsroom is a microcosm of society. Everyone from the publisher and editor in chief down to the rookie crime reporter and the part-time photographer has his or her own opinions, beliefs and values regarding a variety of different issues.\nAnd, just like the rest of us, they aren't and shouldn't be afraid to express their point of view. But the staff editorial is an entirely different story. The New York Times, in its Sunday, Nov. 5 staff editorial, endorsed Al Gore for president of the United States. The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune endorsed George W. Bush. Regardless of these newspapers' traditional "liberal" or "conservative" leanings, it should go without saying that not every journalist takes the party line. Indeed, there's bound to be some disagreement.\nIf you've ever read the opinion page of this newspaper, you know the staff editorial consists of the IDS's stance on a particular issue. For example, Monday's staff editorial dealt with Bush's 1976 DUI arrest. The IDS staff, in a 12-2-2 vote, came to the conclusion that the arrest should not be a factor in the election.\nUpon reading such an editorial, one might conclude that the board's position on this issue is clear. Not so. It is important to read the dissent, which,at least this semester, is often written by Brian Zell, the IDS assistant opinion editor.\nZell is what you might call an enthusiastic dissenter. He's not afraid to disagree. But Zell has good reasons. In response to the Nov. 6 editorial, he wrote: "Knowing a candidate's record should be important to voters. After all, the president is a direct participant in the law-making process ... Drunken drivers … kill people."\nThese are legitimate concerns expressed thoughtfully and pragmatically. The question, then, is this: Are dissenting opinions written by IDS editors useful to readers? If not, should the IDS simply state its views, as voted on and articulated by the staff, and let the readers respond? \nZell has received criticism because of some of those dissents. For example, in his Nov. 1 dissent, "Candidates pander to the people," he waxed philosophical about what qualities should be embodied by a person seeking the presidency, concluding that the president "should not sink to our level." This comment came under fire in a letter to the editor from junior Aaron Dobbins, who wrote, "First and foremost, the president should 'sink to our level' and let the people know … he is not above the common citizen."\nFair enough, but Zell incurred harsher and more personal criticism for his Oct. 25 dissent. In that editorial, entitled "Why I support ELF (and you should too)," he offered a semi-sarcastic explanation of the oil crisis, part of which contained the following assessment: "The Middle East has banded together to fix the supply of oil so it doesn't run out anytime soon. They know if they had no oil, we would change their name to Africa."\nA letter to the editor published Friday from T. Michael Ford, IU's special assistant to the vice president and chief financial officer, accused Zell of making "an ignorant, prejudiced and insulting comment to the continent of Africa, its inhabitants and those whose ancestry traces back to that continent."\nSuch criticism should give the IDS pause. If the purpose of an editorial dissent is to provide an alternative viewpoint or opinion -- as opposed to incensing and provoking people who read it -- then perhaps this newspaper's management should lay down some firmer guidelines about the proper form and tone dissents should take. When a free and healthy debate of ideas and public affairs breaks down into personal attacks, something is wrong with the communication process.\nAnother solution would be to allow staff members who disagree with their colleagues to withhold their name or names from their dissent, should they write one. After all, the writers of the editorials enjoy anonymity. Their names are listed immediately below the editorial in the staff box, but it would be naïve to think that each person contributes to the writing of every editorial.\nBut Zell and his fellow dissenters probably wouldn't take warmly to anonymity, making this one of those issues where it might not be best to agree on how to disagree. Disagreeing to disagree -- think about that the next time you read the IDS opinion page.