The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the largest paper in South Dakota, has taken some flack for its decision not to editorialize on the state's controversial new abortion law. Some have accused the paper of bowing to business interests.

Chuck Baldwin, the Argus Leader's editorial page editor, is an old colleague of ours; we worked at the Dallas Times Herald together many moons ago. We wondered how things have been for him since the paper's decision, and -- more broadly -- where editorial pages fit today in a world of talk radio, bloggers and other sources of political opinion. Among his other duties, Chuck heads up the paper's editorial blog.

So we shipped him some Qs today, and he sent us back some As. Here they are (with only minor editing and reordering):

Q: Your decision not to editorialize on the abortion law has been controversial. In what ways are you opening up the abortion-law debate to discussion in your newspaper?

A: I think the decision -- and it was a conscious decision -- was more controversial among journalists than our readers.

I can only speak for the editorial page, but we're publishing letters to the editor, as always, and we invited online comment about how well or poorly our legislature did this session. Of course, that covered a wide range of topics, not just abortion. If abortion letters overtake us -- and that's hard to say right now -- then we'll probably start publishing some of them only in the online edition, which has much more space than our print edition. If we publish them all in the print edition, space limitations could mean some of those might wait quite awhile before they see the light of day. That's not fair to the writers and the people who want to see their opinions.

On the other hand, we have been criticized when we've done that in the past with other topics. Criticized by people who understand not everyone in South Dakota uses computers on a regular basis to access news and newspapers. That, of course, will change as our society becomes more computer literate.

Q: What has been the reaction to Executive Editor Randell Beck's column announcing that the paper would not offer an editorial opinion?

A: Reaction has been muted. There only have been a few letters or e-mails addressing the column or our decision not to write an editorial on the abortion bill. The criticisms from readers have fallen into two categories -- those people who thought we should take an editorial position that would support their own position (in favor of the bill or opposed to it) or those who thought certain that if we'd taken a position they wouldn't have liked it -- and were disappointed not to have the opportunity to criticize us for taking the wrong position.

Most South Dakota readers, I think, fully understand our position. There really isn't anything new to add to the abortion debate, and this is a very personal issue for most people. We certainly wouldn't have changed any minds.

Q: In general, what do you see as the role of the newspaper editorial page today?

A: The role of the editorial page hasn't changed at all -- to provide leadership and a community forum, what we call here a "marketplace of ideas." It's how you get there in a changing media and technology world that's changed.

Q: Has the role of the editorial page been impacted by the proliferation of blogs, not to mention talk radio and other outlets? If so, how?

A: The role hasn't changed, but the attitude toward the editorial page has changed dramatically. In years' past, readers were honored that their letters were accepted for publication. Now, readers feel they have an absolute right to have their opinions aired. In addition, there are many more outlets for readers to find opinions. And, many of these other outlets are faster at providing opinions (and getting reader opinions out in public) than traditional print newspapers, which have only 1 or 2 or 3 editions a day, basically morning or afternoon. That's caused newspapers -- quite logically -- to seek ways to involve readers more, involve them more regularly and involve them more immediately.

Q: Do you see the role of the editorial page evolving over the next few years, and if so, how?

A: As we address these issues of reader involvement and immediacy, yes, we'll evolve. We'll change. How? Hard to say. All depends on how open newspapers are to new ideas and what technology allows. We're already addressing -- or trying to -- demystifying the editorial page, immediate and two-way communication with readers, involvement of readers in our pages (while retaining our role as community leaders with institutional control of our papers).

What's next? It partly depends on where newspapers are willing to go and what interest readers have in going there. I don't think it's out of the question that in the next decade or two we'll see true editorial pages online -- not just the pieces you see now -- that will change throughout the day to reflect new information or new ideas.

That could mean editorials evolving throughout the day and letters to the editor perhaps evolving/changing to reflect those evolving editorials or news updates. And if we have you-rewrite-it editorials (a version of the LA Times Wikitorial), could we not have you-redraw-it cartoons? Why not?

Technorati tags: Journalism, PR