So proud, so predictable, so last century…
In the wide world of news and journalism, few organizations are more out of it than big city daily newspapers – which of course includes our beloved Kansas City Star.
That’s kind of surprising in a way, given that the Star was among the first to embrace the cutting edge use of computers and – what’s that term? – the worldwide web.
That said, getting a handle on technology is one thing, learning how to think outside of a very small box quite another.
As evidenced by the recent trumpeting of the newspaper’s “new” editorial board. Which other than on paper, for the most part, isn’t the slightest bit new.
Oh sure, there’s a refugee, new woman editor from out town heading things up now. And of course, Star editorial mainstay Yael Abouhalkah took a long-overdue bullet late last year.
However four out of seven of the, uh, new board members are retreads. Which all but guarantees the editorial tail will continue to wag the Star’s news dog, given that the newbies have few clues as to the whys and wherefores of life here in the cowtown.
Not to mention ZERO of those four have anything approaching so much as even the slightest conservative political leaning, let alone a single hip bone in their bodies.
Does the word “stodgy” ring any bells?
Colleen McCaIn Nelson New Star editorial board honcho
In other words, you can count on bone dry regulars like Mary Sanchez to tow an MSNBC-style liberal line and talk down to any readers who don’t see things exactly through her predictable, unimaginative eyes.
Add to that, former Star librarian-turned-reader rep—turned editorial board member Derek Donovan. Which is probably a good move given that Donovan’s thin skin rendered him a poor choice to mix it up with unhappy and/or critical readers.
On top of which he’ll fit right in to the newspaper’s nanny state mindset.
TV newsie refugee Dave Helling is a benign choice.
Helling’s a super nice guy, but about as far from cutting edge as former Star political writer turned public radio show dude turned UMKC prof Steve Kraske.
Put another way…
Look for plenty more of the same as the Star continues to talk down to readers about political correctness and the like as they party like it’s still 1999.
Here’s the problem – and this is going to sound a bit harsh but collectively, these guys don’t have a clue.
I mean, obviously they’re functioning, adult human beings. I’ll give them that.
Yet while once upon a time the Star’s editorial board – and that of similar newspapers – could actually move the needle of public opinion, with the odd exception, that’s no longer the case.
Today newspaper editorial boards are an anachronism.
Which is why mostly nobody under age 60 particularly cares what newspaper opinion writers think outside of music, arts or entertainment reviews (if those).
But shhhhhhhhh – plummeting circulation numbers aside – nobody in the newspaper world seems to get it.
So ever onwards they plow, as evidenced by the ridiculous “Giving Trump a chance” editorial last Sunday:
“President Donald Trump,” it begins followed by a pregnant pause.
“As improbable as it still seems to read those words, or to write them, they are reality. The one-time businessman took the oath of office Friday and is now the most significant political figure in the nation, and the world.”
Breaking news!
“Many Americans are understandably worried Trump threatens long-standing democratic norms: free expression, the protection of minority and individual rights, the importance of debate and compromise…. But declaring this a failed presidency before it even begins won’t help our country,” it continues. “Like every president before him, Trump deserves a chance to succeed, and Americans should commit to giving him the opportunity to do so.”
Talk about insincere concessions.
And hey, it’s not as if anybody who hasn’t already drank the Kool-Aid much cares what this collective of newsprint hangers on thinks.
The condescension continues.
“Mostly, we want to give the president a chance in order to encourage his better instincts…If not, a siege mentality likely will consume the White House, and he will do whatever he wants.
Of course, Trump may do whatever he wants, regardless of the circumstances. That means our willingness to give the president some running room has limits.”
Seriously, as if Trump – thin skinned though he obviously is – gives a you-know-what a small collective of midwestern print newsies thinks.
Besides, it’s not like Sanchez didn’t spend the better part of the past year bagging on Trump.
So now here’s my news tip:
How about the folks at 18th and Grand focus on doing a better job reporting actual news, covering local personalities and entertainment – the sort of stuff readers really want – instead of pretending their personal political opinions somehow still matter?
Nailed it!
Au Contraire mon admin. I think your dislike for the Star has clouded your view here. As a liberal, I used to be able to trust the Star to be reliably left in everything they wrote with the exception of the Letters section and the national conservative columnists like Krauthamer et al in the Editorials but when they endorsed Blunt over Kander last year, it was obvious the corner had been turned. They still are left for the most part but there have been a few other examples of views in the last few months a little closer to moderate GOP than have ever appeared in the past. Maybe ownership is responding to the deserved reputation of the Star being too predictably liberal. I did not perceive the Give Trump a Chance editorial as ridiculous condescension. It sounds more like what all my Republican friends have been telling me for the past 2 months. Also unfair to imply that Kraske lacks cred because he is not “cutting edge”. I think credibility in that position comes from years of involvement so “cutting edge” isn’t a valuable criteria in my opinion. One may not like Kraske’s view or style, but I think he knows his topic.
Otherwise a good piece, HC.
We were taught in J-school that there were no left wing nor right wing journalists writing the news.
Now before everyone gets their panties in a wad it was meant to teach us to write from a neutral viewpoint.
Take your story idea and investigate. If the investigation takes you to where your original idea is proved mistaken, follow the story to its rightful conclusion.
Today’s reporters seem to take their idea and work backwards to prove it rather than following where the story truly leads.
The best way to lie is to tell just enough of the truth and then stop.
Au contraire, back at ya, Stomps!
I don’t dislike the Star, I’m not only a reader but a subscriber.
I also happen to be – reminder alert – a media critic. When I worked at the Star I wasn’t allowed to critique them directly (although as a number of Star staffers knew, I did so indirectly). Instead I focused on other local media.
Now that I am unbound, it’s kind of obvious that the city’s largest media is ripe for being critiqued.
To suggest that I “don’t like” someone or something – short of me having declared it – is little more than a guess…an incorrect guess, by the way.
Not fully understanding the nuances of the editorial board, it’s easy to see how you could pull one or two decisions out of context and assume that the worm has turned.
Not so.
The new publisher is a pretty safe bet as to having tipped the scales on the Blunt.
That said, you should take note of the fact that I know most of these people quite well and no way Sanchez and Kraske are anything less than card carrying liberals.
Years of involvement going down the same road in the same manner over and over with essentially the exact same viewpoint doesn’t necessarily imply cred.
Having opinions isn’t like learning a craft. Thirty successful years of carpentry or candle making would seem to indicate a bettering of the skills involved.
Thirty years of reading about and talking about things from the same narrow point of view are quite another matter.
And 30 years of reading the same old, same old makes for boredom…at least for me.
Cutting edge in this case is meant to imply that some forward and or new thinking is at play. Not so here.
And while on one hand, Republicans saying give Trump a chance in one context is one thing. The Star editorial board talking down to him with a not so veiled threat of what they well may do, quite another.
Especially given that they have bagged on his so relentlessly that it smacks of insincerity.
Thanks for weighing in!
How quaint. They think their opinions still matter. They think they still have some influence. They think anyone cares what they think, if you can call it thinking, and that they have a monopoly on the news people can access. They think no one has noticed how intellectually dishonest they are. How quaint.
I’m with HER
The only news outlet more irrelevant than the KC Star might be CNN or MSNBC.
Uh, I’m with HIM, too
I opine that the Star has taken positive steps, even though my view is the result of
ONE editorial issue!
bg
Did the editorial direction change because the Star saw Trump’s win coming? Just kept beating Hillary’s drum to CYA?
Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. Robert A. Heinlein
Bingo, opinions are everywhere. No one needs The Star’s two cents on any issue, nor do most trust them to perform the role of an honest broker that would be needed to be relevant.
When will newspapers understand that the one thing that no one else can do as well is write solid, in-depth original reporting. Even if it’s a day late newspapers can have the last and most authoritative word on a subject if they commit themselves to being viciously objective and analytical.
Real journalism is worth it’s weight in gold and everyone is looking for a source that will provide them with solid, unbiased news on topics that interest them, not the topics some condescending leftist wants us to be interested in.
Good to see your name back here John.
Curious if you think there is such a thing as a condescending conservative?
A wonderful counterpoint to the article. You’re correct, of course, except for the “condescending leftist” comment. That extension of your sentence destroyed the impact the rest of your comment contained. Surely, you can categorize life in America in more expansive terms than conservative versus liberal.
John is right….
If the Star intends to remain (or regain) relevant, they need to stop gazing into the mirror and kidding themselves about their 2 cents still mattering and get down in a three point stance and get back to telling people news they don’t know.
Pretty basic!
Don’t trust the Lugenpresse. The American media sacrificed 90 years of credibility it had built up since the age of yellow journalism in an attempt to elect Hillary.
No amount of Jowly finger wagging from Dave Helling is going to stop the swamp from being drained.
You weren’t as smart as you thought and now you are out on your ass!
F’ the Times, I read the Post.
It’s not clear to me, Mr. Christopher, what improvements you’d like to see over at the Star, except you’ve made it clear you’d like them to hire younger people. Your comment about Steve Kraske, “… as far from cutting edge …” doesn’t mean anything to me. Further, I doubt you speak for the entire metropolitan population when you say “… the sort of stuff readers really want …” You really speak for yourself and, somewhat disingenuously in my opinion, use declining readership over at the Star to make the point that the Star is out of touch with the public it seeks to serve. That may be true of the Star, but declining readership, in my view, has to do with longer term trends in society.
Being critical of Yael Abouhalkah, Steve Kraske, Dave Helling and the Colleen McCain Nelson is fine with me. That’s an opinion I don’t share, but you’ve a right to express a critical view of their work. However, your view that “newspaper editorial boards are an anachronism” runs contrary to accepted thought about how any large organization, in any field of endeavor, should be managed.
If you’ve got a right to express your view, the Star does as well. How the Star decides, as an organization, what viewpoint to express is entirely within their right.
There is a point to make about organizations that’s interesting to me. Some organizations, like Google and Microsoft, gain more success by becoming larger. Others seek success by getting smaller to concentrate on their core mission, like Republicans wish to do with government. This, I believe, may be your point about the Star although you haven’t exactly said that. What course the Star should take moving forward, I cannot say, but you worked there. You ought to know. I do believe that the people chosen for their editorial board are bright, talented and accomplished individuals. You’re not making a believer out of me by criticizing those folks. individuals.
Your comment is long and interesting Laura and I’ve limited time right now, however…
The trend in major metropolitan newspapers is AWAY from editorial boards talking down to readers.
Believe it was CNNB during the election campaign last summer had the publishers of three major dailies explaining why they had or were doing away with theirs.
The topic was raised in part because many of the newspapers that designated Hillary as their choice had run contrary to its readers voting.
The reason the Star needs to hire younger reporters (and at some point editors), is that the times have changed and the Baby Boomer generation is out of touch with the younger audience they need to reach and appeal to.
Pretty simple.
John A’s point is dead on: they need to do a better job of covering interesting news and step away from the preaching and obvious reporting.
You are certainly welcome to take a leap of faith that just because someone has a job they are bright and talented. And in some respects you are undoubtedly correct. However, having the kind of instincts to attract readers doesn’t automatically come with being bright.
Having the highest read column in the Star over a 16 year period doesn’t necessarily guarantee that I’m either bright or talented, but it does suggest I have good instincts on writing about things readers find interesting.
And I’ll tell you this, neither Sanchez or Kraske were ever in the running g for that award (however Whitlock and Joe Posnanski certainly were).
I was a faithful reader of your column, Mr. Christopher. I enjoyed it and would never say otherwise. The reason I access this site is because of the quality of your work at the Star. In my opinion, you have great instincts about what readers find interesting.
I do take a Kierkegaard leap of faith when reading opinion writers. By the way, I included “accomplished” along with bright and talented in my description. That group includes Kraske, Yael, yourself, Colleen McCain Nelson and many others. I don’t understand why you must be so critical of your colleagues. I’m not a big fan of the Star, but they do some good things and I read it every day.
I spend about a hundred dollars a month on subscriptions … NY Times, WAPO, the Boston Globe, Chi. Tribune, Dallas Morn. News, L.A. Times and the WSJ. I subscribe to several periodicals, too. I confess that I don’t read everything, but I can tell you that the sources I named do have editorial boards. I’m not sure what you consider a major daily, but that group is a pretty good start.
Best wishes!
Bring in Bill Kalihurka!
Same old leftists and their institutions: No place whatsoever for a diversity of viewpoints. The most anti-diversity group I’ve ever encountered, the leftists. Same as it ever was.