El Paso Times' Front-Page Editorial

The El Paso Times posted an Op-Ed on the front page of the Sunday paper and it has caused a fair amount of controversy. Honestly, I am of mixed feelings about it myself.

First, let me start by saying that we can't have it both ways in this town. For years people have been complaining about how the Times wasn't doing enough investigative reporting and how they missed the boat on the public corruption scandal.

And the criticism was well placed. The public corruption scandal was broken open by an out-of-town paper and David Crowder. Not by the El Paso Times.

And now, the Times has come around and is starting to do some good stuff.

So you can't complain about them missing the boat and then complain when they are on top of something.

And you can't deny the fact that we have a pretty unique situation in El Paso in terms of public corruption. It seems like its almost everywhere. No one should be tolerant of corruption in this town. Those that are tolerate it are part of the problem.

So good for them for taking on the public corruption scandal.

That being said, there are some issues I have with the editorial's placement. First of all, the fact that it was on the front page is in my opinion, inappropriate. People have a problem understanding the difference between news and editorial content. That's part of the reason I am so insistent with people about my blog not being a site for journalism.

When the paper then turns around and puts editorial content in a place where the reader expects to see news its going to be a controversy. And confusing for readers.

I don't have a problem with the content of the piece, I have a problem with the placement of the piece. The same thing could've been said on their regular editorial page. You know, like any other day of the week.

The fact that it was put on the front page was deliberate. They wanted to make a bigger splash and create more urgency. That was the whole point of putting it on the front page.

News is supposed to report what is going on. In this case, they are trying to affect an outcome. Now they are not reporting news, they are creating news. That's a slippery slope and this is not something that is normally done in print media. Its a calculated and willful attempt at changing policy. The debate becomes whether or not that is appropriate for media.

Although you could make the argument that its not too much different than endorsing a candidate. But this is calling for the removal of most of an entire governing body.

But at the end of the day, the Times actually makes a solid point about accountability and corruption. The greater point they are making is that there needs to be some accountability around the public corruption scandal. People need to lose their jobs.

The voters are the boss, not the media. Its the voters responsibility to fire the people that aren't doing their job, and clearly if all this stuff happened, someone wasn't doing their job.

However, when you have such a disengaged electorate, or elections that are held for the position during periods that are guaranteed to ensure minimal voter participation, its no wonder we get the results we get.

The practical impact of the front page editorial won't be as much to generate phone calls and emails as much as it will be to light a fire under voters. One thing is for certain, those board members will be asked some tough questions the rest of the way out.