The Oklahoman's Editorial Page

[Questor]

I have a serious question and I am hoping that the responses can stay friendly. With the leadership changes at The Oklahoman, is there any chance that the Editorial/Opinion page might someday contain opposing viewpoints? It strikes me as odd that all of the major newspapers that I read (USA Today, Dallas News, etc.) often have both conservative and liberal commentary, but The Oklahoman does not. Heck one of the Dallas News' commentators used to work for a famous Democrat, and USA Today routinely runs an "opposing view" article after they print an article from their viewpoint (which is often conservative but sometimes liberal).

I'm not a liberal, but I'm also not an ultra conservative, and I tend to think that we learn at least as much about life by trying to understand the guy whose views we don't agree with as we do listening to those we agree with. I guess it's just surprising to me that we have a city this big and the paper's editorial page is run the way it is.

If there are occasionally opposing views from respected national writers I apologize, they certainly are not printed on the iPad version or the website.

[bornhere]

To answer your question, no.

[Pete]

You should have seen the editorials and general stance when E.K. and then E.L. Gaylord were running OPUBCO.

Makes the current publication look like the NY Times in comparison.

[MikeOKC]

You should have seen the editorials and general stance when E.K. and then E.L. Gaylord were running OPUBCO.

Makes the current publication look like the NY Times in comparison.

We'll see what happens under the new editor, Kelly Dyer Fry. There's also a new opinion-page editor (J.E. McReynolds), And if that's not enough, publisher David Thompson is leaving and Chris Reen is taking his place. Big changes at OPUBCO. No telling how it will all shake out. Probably not much "real" change as long as Christy Gaylord Everest is Chairman & CEO.

[bornhere]

The Oklahoman's underlying philosophy has always been not to encourage people to think, but to tell them what to think.

[Bunty]

You should have seen the editorials and general stance when E.K. and then E.L. Gaylord were running OPUBCO.

Makes the current publication look like the NY Times in comparison.

No kidding it was on multiple non stop crusades to cut taxes, bring right to work to Oklahoma, along with anti gay tirades.

[jmarkross]

E.K. Gaylord was a good man, period. Revisionist points of view tell other stories.

Most are, at best, pure conjecture.

[Midtowner]

E.K. Gaylord was a good man, period. Revisionist points of view tell other stories.

Most are, at best, pure conjecture.

A good man who was involved in a vast criminal conspiracy and almost went to prison; who would have, but for his corrupting influence on state politics.

[jmarkross]

A good man who was involved in a vast criminal conspiracy and almost went to prison; who would have, but for his corrupting influence on state politics.

Is that anything like...was never convicted of anything...? Except--perhaps--being a thorn in the side of Dixie-crats...

[kevinpate]

Not knocking the family or the paper, but it did not carry weight in Little Dixie like it did elsewhere. For most in Little Dixie, they dinna care about the Oklahoman beyond its usefulness as bird cage liner.

[Midtowner]

Is that anything like...was never convicted of anything...? Except--perhaps--being a thorn in the side of Dixie-crats...

Just like OJ Simpson was never convicted of anything?

[Jim Kyle]

E.K. Gaylord was a good man, period. Revisionist points of view tell other stories.

Most are, at best, pure conjecture.

Good in the same sense that William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were good, I believe. At least he never fomented any international incidents to boost his circulation -- he didn't need them.

He was very much an old-time editor -- and during his lifetime, nobody else held the title of "editor" although so far as I know he didn't step foot inside the newsroom. Virtually all journalism during the 19th century was totally partisan; he was no exception.

Adolph Och was one of the very few publishing giants to run against the tide; when he ran the New York Times, he would send two reporters (with opposing viewpoints) to cover any controversial issue, and print their reports side by side to offer readers a more balanced view. Too bad the practice never caught on elsewhere...