Despite it being a huge issue, and the biggest newsworthy bit to come from South Dakota for a while, the largest paper in SD will not editorialize about the recent abortion ban.
In fact, the reason seems to be exactly because it’s such a huge issue.
Although the biggest abortion rights story in 33 years is taking place in its own backyard, South Dakota’s largest newspaper will not editorialize on the controversial statewide abortion ban just recently approved by its legislature.
“Part of it was that we wouldn’t change people’s minds, and part of it, regardless of which side we came down on this, is that people would read into it things that are not true,” Chuck Baldwin, editorial page editor of the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, S.D., told E&P. “People would think our coverage is tainted, and not just on abortion but on everything.”
When asked if such a view could preclude editorials on virtually any controversial issue, Baldwin disagreed. “Abortion is different from other issues,” he replied. “It is a hot-button issue at the core of everyone’s soul. It will not change no matter what.”
Baldwin’s comments came three days after Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation that bans abortions throughout the state, except when a woman’s life is in danger. It has drawn national attention to the quiet state and sparked new heated debates over limitations on a woman’s right to choose, and even what the U.S. Supreme Court might do if the ban reaches its chambers.
But Baldwin and the paper’s six-person editorial board contend that editorializing would not be the right decision because abortion is such an emotional issue. “It is not like endorsing a candidate or a bond measure,” he said. “Not even like the death penalty or the war in Iraq….
“Rather than change anyone’s mind, we would create another controversy,” he said, adding that the daily is generally known as a liberal paper. “We take positions on other things and will.”
What the hell? If you can’t stand the heat, get the hell out of the business. If I were a board member of any journalistic society in the US, I would boot the SD Argus Leader out of the club. I don’t care if they’re liberal, conservative, pro-ban, anti-ban, or pro-clubbling-baby-seals … declining, as a leading newspaper, to comment on a news story because it’s too controversial is, in a word, chickenshit.
Beck revealed that the editorial board “agonized, we argued, we spoke passionately and personally. And at the end of two tortuous sessions, we concluded what you likely already know. Given the intractable divisions in our state and nation, nothing we could say on our editorial page would change anyone’s mind – and it could well jeopardize the credibility we have worked long and hard to establish.”
He also noted a sharp divide among residents, writing that a statewide poll two years ago by the paper and a local television station found that 34% believed abortion should be legal, 34% said it should be available in some specific circumstances – such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother – and 25%, he recalled, said it should be illegal under any circumstances.
“In the emotional and escalating debate over abortion, Americans find themselves bound to faith and conviction, a deeply felt sense of what is right. No editorial, no matter how deftly written, will change that,” Beck added. “That means there will be none in the Argus Leader on this most profound of subjects, or on the legislation fashioned by the state’s 81st legislative session.”
So the only time you’re willing to express an opinion if it will change people’s minds? What sort of a narrow definition of the purposes of the editorial board is that? What about giving voice to those who might agree with you? What about expressing your own opinion about something, regardless of what others might think of it. That would be bravery, as opposed to its opposite.
Frankly? It think the phrase “could well jeopardize the credibility we have worked long and hard to establish” is the key here. As in, “would damage our circulation, would damage our ad revenue … and would possibly damage our cars if people egg them.”
If they’d be open about about that fear, it would still be cowardice, but it would be honest cowardice.
How often have you heard of someone brave enough to be an honest coward?
It’s a trait I’m trying to foster in myself. 🙂
There’s a reason we used to call that paper the Argus Liar. 😛