newsminer.com

I bumped into an acquaintance at the store this weekend and he grinned broadly as he approached, "Man, they're really ripping you guys in those comments on the Web site, eh?" was his greeting.

Then he asked if I could loan him some "Big Oil money."

He was joking of course, but he was referring to numerous comments on the Web site — and now in at least one letter to the editor — that the editorial board is selling its opinions in exchange for the full-page color advertisements placed by oil companies. He did seem a little surprised that I wasn't more excited by all of these comments.

This is probably new stuff for some people to read, but I've been seeing it in personal e-mails and taking the phone calls and face-to-face comments for a lot of years. It ebbs and flows depending on the issue of the day, but these kinds of comments are not new. The specific reference to how rich Big Oil is making us is the latest twist (and my wife would like to know where I'm hiding the extra income).

I've always taken these jabs as a natural reaction to want to attack the messenger. It's annoying, but there is no winning the debate. Someone says you're, essentially, dishonest. You counter with facts. They say your "facts" are made up or spoon fed to you by the bad guys, and on it goes.

I think this Big Oil sellout logic is backwards, though. One could argue that if money was our only motivation it would make more sense for us to editorialize against oil company ideas. Then perhaps they would feel the need to buy more ads to counter our editorial opinions.

The editorial board has taken unpopular stances in the past and I'm sure it will in the future. We sometimes joke among ourselves that our endorsement of an initiative is a kiss of death at the ballot box. Reflecting the popular view is not our area of expertise, nor is it our goal. I would think that people would prefer to have a local paper that isn't afraid to take an unpopular stance if it's what we believe is in the best interest of the state or the community.

I've been peppered with two recurring threats in my 13 years as editor: "I'll end my subscription and many others will too," and "I'll pull my advertising," — the first much more commonly than the second. I think that's because advertisers who have worked with us for a long time just know better.

The truth is that neither can be a factor in what positions the editorial board takes. Advertisers and subscribers have their own decisions to make. If we have a relevant product that challenges and interests people, advertisers should want to make use of it to reach an engaged audience. If we have a relevant product that challenges and interests people, then people should want to read it and keep up with what's going on.

I formulate my own opinions and I sometimes I can only go with what my gut says is right based on what little I've had time to research. I take that opinion to the board and the combined information, experience and opinions of members of the editorial board should, at the very least, result in editorials that add solid points and background to the public debate. Enhanced public discussion should lead to a better-informed populace.

I expect attacks on the messenger, that's par for the course. What's more important is whether people consider the points the messenger brings forth.