In defense of opinions

It's not often that this column praises or defends the IDS and its staff, but, on occasion, such comment is necessary.\nThis is one of those occasions. The reason? Many readers of late have questioned the integrity and responsibility of the IDS -- especially its opinion page.\nSuch questioning is crucial, even essential, to the success or failure of the IDS. But success, in the case of a newspaper, does not mean always pleasing or satisfying readers.\nFailure, respectively, does not always mean offending, challenging and confronting readers.\nFortunately, popularity is not required of opinions. But some readers think differently.\nWhether the subject is its staff editorials, recurring columnists or choice of what letters to the editor to print, the IDS opinion page has been taking some hits lately. \n"I have come to regard the opinion page at the IDS as none other than a vehicle by which the opinion writer(s) express (their) own self-centered interests," a concerned reader wrote in an e-mail message to the ombudsman. "Put the pen in someone else's hand, and get rid of the shortsightedness prevalent among IDS opinion writers."\nA letter to the editor from Nick Gawlikowski, a senior, said the IDS opinion page printed too many letters from alumni. "Please consider curbing the publishing of alumni letters," his letter, which was published in the Feb. 8 IDS, read. "This paper is for students, not for the complaints of disgruntled alumni."\nAnother letter to the editor, also printed Feb. 8, attacked the wisdom of the writers of the IDS staff editorials. "Get off your high horse, IDS," James Poeppelman, a junior, wrote. "As far as I am concerned, most of you are a bunch of whiny yes-men and -women playing journalist in daddy's closet."\nOuch.\nIs this criticism just? Of course it is. Randy Beam, a professor in the School of Journalism, pointed that out with his own letter to the editor, a humorously subtle defense of the opinion page. Beam's letter also appeared in the Feb. 8 issue. It bore the title, "Opinion page is where student, community opinions belong."\nIt's hard to argue with that point, but we should at least make the effort. That's what opinions are for, after all.\nSo, should the IDS opinion page ditch its columnists, be more selective in what letters it prints, and knock some sense into its editorial board? Well, the answer to that depends on what the readers want to get out of the opinion page. Some of us like to be challenged and informed; some like to be entertained; and some like to see their own personal views, opinions and beliefs reflected in what gets printed.\n"We've been hearing the complaints, and we want the readers to like the opinion page," senior Kate Lewis, the assistant opinion editor, said.\nLiking, in this case, is not synonymous with agreement, nor should it be. Placing that kind of restraint upon the opinion page would dramatically reduce its relevance, rendering it virtually powerless to act as an important medium for social discourse and public affairs. \nIf you don't like the opinion page now, try taking away student journalists' freedom to voice unpopular views and see how bad it gets. We need opinions -- popular and unpopular -- to interpret the world in which we live and its events, both the extraordinary and the mundane. To go without would be, frankly, boring.\nSome readers might use the term "boring" to describe some of the columns found on the opinion page. Others might say the page and its columnists are too liberal or not representative of the IU community's diverse spectrum of views. \nContent and form are both at issue. Complaints have been made about what some of the columnists are saying as well as how they are saying it. Some find fault with the personal, slice-of-life columns that offer commentary on how to understand women; ruminate about the aging process and marriage; and serve as collections of everyday, common wisdom and sayings -- just to mention a few of the column topics in last week's issues. "Nonsense" is how one reader referred to this type of column.\nOn the other hand, issue-oriented columns are attacked for being poorly researched, uninformed and cliched. Graduate student Brian Zell, for example, took some flak last week for his column about President George W. Bush's recent decisions and policy proposals, such as school vouchers, oil drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge and the missile defense shield. \nHe's not the only columnist being criticized. One reason for this might be the fact that columnists, unlike the rest of the IDS editorial staff, often retain their positions from semester to semester and year to year. Over time, readers might get tired of certain columnists or subjects.\n"Basically, the way that we get the columnists is they are inherited down to us," Lewis said in explaining IDS policy on columnists. "Some quit and some stay on, but what we do is encourage people to submit and, if we think they're good and we have a slot open, then we offer them a position as a columnist." \nLewis admits the consistency of IDS columns varies. "We get a lot of complaints about the liberal slant, but we stand behind (our columnists) and work with them," she said. "Everybody can use improvement. We hope they stay on and continue to get better, but we welcome new columnists. We want to accommodate viewpoints and get them onto the page."\nShe also explained the process of applying for a position as a columnist. "Bring in two writing samples on any topic you want; we'll read through it and if we think it's something the opinion page could use, and if we have a free spot, then we'll offer a position on a trial basis," she said. \nAs for the rest of the IDS opinion page (staff editorials and letters to the editor), a more extensive analysis of it will have to wait.\nSuffice it to say opinions need not be popular, free of bias or even informed to be important. They should be important in their own right, and that's why we read the IDS opinion page -- like it or not.