Editorial Boards
2011-05-23 - by
The CIA has water-boarding. The N&O has editorial-boarding.
I sat in on an N&O editorial board meeting Wednesday that starred Dr. Bill Atkinson from WakeMed (full disclosure: my client) and Dr. Bill Roper from UNC Health Care.
I felt like I was back in a campaign debate.
The N&O story stressed the fireworks: “Hospital rivals go to the mat,” the headline said. Alan Wolf’s story said “the two bosses…intensified their animosity” in “an often-frosty meeting with reporters and editors” and described it as “heated, but polite, similar to a political debate.”
I enjoy this sort of thing, you understand. It’s like getting my campaign fix without having to go through one. And, selfishly, I liked the contrast between Roper, who focused on what’s right for UNC, and Atkinson, who focused on what’s right for the community and the state.
It was enlightening to hear both sides in one sitting. In fact, I even suggested to a couple of N&O chieftains that they tape future sessions and post the video on their website.
Publisher Orage Quarles, who recused himself from the session because he’s on the Rex board, emailed me back: “I like having both sides at the same time. I think we get more clarity with responses.”
But one thing nags at me. The very nature of the meeting seems to encourage conflict and exacerbate emotions, which always run high on hotly debated issues. I wonder: Does that contribute to resolving differences – or make resolution harder?
One editor asked, in effect, “Can’t you guys just work together?” Well, did the editorial face-off help – or hurt?
Is this a case where the media morphs from reporting news to creating news? And is there anything wrong with that?
Editorial Boards
2011-05-23/
The CIA has water-boarding. The N&O has editorial-boarding.
I sat in on an N&O editorial board meeting Wednesday that starred Dr. Bill Atkinson from WakeMed (full disclosure: my client) and Dr. Bill Roper from UNC Health Care.
I felt like I was back in a campaign debate.
The N&O story stressed the fireworks: “Hospital rivals go to the mat,” the headline said. Alan Wolf’s story said “the two bosses…intensified their animosity” in “an often-frosty meeting with reporters and editors” and described it as “heated, but polite, similar to a political debate.”
I enjoy this sort of thing, you understand. It’s like getting my campaign fix without having to go through one. And, selfishly, I liked the contrast between Roper, who focused on what’s right for UNC, and Atkinson, who focused on what’s right for the community and the state.
It was enlightening to hear both sides in one sitting. In fact, I even suggested to a couple of N&O chieftains that they tape future sessions and post the video on their website.
Publisher Orage Quarles, who recused himself from the session because he’s on the Rex board, emailed me back: “I like having both sides at the same time. I think we get more clarity with responses.”
But one thing nags at me. The very nature of the meeting seems to encourage conflict and exacerbate emotions, which always run high on hotly debated issues. I wonder: Does that contribute to resolving differences – or make resolution harder?
One editor asked, in effect, “Can’t you guys just work together?” Well, did the editorial face-off help – or hurt?
Is this a case where the media morphs from reporting news to creating news? And is there anything wrong with that?