First, let me go on record that I've never really liked anything Frank Rich wrote in the Times' arts section. Nor can I usually make it beyond the 37th graf of his screeds.
That said, I've been amused by the debate, and apparent capitulation, on the part of the NYT, as to whether he belongs in Arts or Op-Ed.
Sectioning is very relevant online. In fact, every reader deserves his own edition.
But in print? Rich could and should go on the front page. Or in sports, if he happens to touch on the topic. Or wherever the hell an editor thinks he fits.
Like many cherished ideas that aren't ideals, this one fails miserably:
In a newspaper, particularly one that aspires to be the paper of record, opinion belongs on the opinion page. Even if I agree with Rich, which I do with alarming regularity, I still don't much appreciate the ammunition he -- and a hundred other professional soap-boxers -- have given to all the belligerent wingnuts who have managed to spread skepticism about the world's authoritative news sources because they cannot or will not see the difference between one person's passionately expressed beliefs and another's reported observations and sourced quotes. Ever notice how National Public Radio does not broadcast any opinion -- except as rare, carefully isolated, and identified "commentaries"?
The root of this myth-guided thought lies in the objectivity myth.
Comments