As news publishers wrestle with political polarization, misinformation and declining public trust, many are asking whether opinion journalism has become more of a liability than an asset. Constitutional scholar Stuart Brotman believes that is the wrong question. The issue is not whether opinion pages should disappear, he argues, but whether they can once again become places where communities engage in thoughtful civic dialogue instead of partisan conflict.
In a conversation with E&P, Brotman said the First Amendment remains legally strong, but the culture surrounding free expression has become increasingly fragile. For local publishers, he believes rebuilding trust begins with stronger editorial leadership, clearer standards and a renewed commitment to meaningful community conversation.
Opinion pages should lead the conversation
Brotman believes newspapers have a responsibility to shape civic discourse, not simply provide an unfiltered platform for every viewpoint. “I think it’s important, particularly at the local level, for editors and editorial boards to retain editorial voices,” he said. “Part of opinion journalism should be having those voices expressed by editors.”
Rather than allowing opinion pages to become repositories for political grievances, he believes editorials should establish the tone for productive public discussion. “Editorial boards and editors can help moderate that process by publishing editorials that focus on local issues,” Brotman said. “When people read them, they want to respond to what the editorial voice is saying.”
He worries that many communities have lost that dialogue altogether. “I think part of that dialogue has been lost,” he said. “Because of that, it tends to become a one-way street where people are simply venting back to the news organization instead of having a conversation.”
Brotman also stressed that newspapers are under no constitutional obligation to publish every submission they receive. “There is no right to be heard,” he said. “An individual doesn’t have the right to send in a letter and have it published.”
Instead, he believes publishers should focus on encouraging more thoughtful participation. “We want the community to offer feedback and constructive ideas about our community,” Brotman said. “People vent from an emotional place, but they also vent because they haven’t been taught or guided on how to offer constructive responses.”
The Trump speech demonstrated why editorial judgment matters
The recent prime-time presidential address by President Donald Trump highlighted another challenge facing modern news organizations. While some broadcast networks chose not to air the speech live, others carried it with extensive fact checking or contextual reporting. The differing approaches sparked criticism from viewers who argued that every presidential address deserves automatic live coverage.
Brotman sees the situation very differently. “What’s great is that individual editors can make individual editorial decisions,” he said. “Obviously what we see here is that range of editorial decisions.”
He noted that each network applied its own journalistic standards. “ABC and NBC decided editorially upfront that they believed this was not essentially a good use of airtime,” Brotman said. “CBS decided, yes, it is news, so we need to cover it, but we also need to build in a fact-checking mechanism.”
For Brotman, those differences reflect the independence that good journalism requires rather than evidence of political bias. “I think the good news now is that we have this range of editorial decisions,” he said. “This is actually a good development, which is editorial decision making.”
He contrasted today’s media environment with an earlier era when every presidential address automatically interrupted programming. “Many people remember once upon a time when the president said he was going to address the nation,” Brotman said. “All of the major broadcast networks and the cable networks cleared that time immediately without questioning what are you going to talk about.”
He noted that those practices changed well before the current administration. “Those days are gone, not just in terms of the current president,” he said. “This also happened with Biden and Obama when networks decided maybe this speech is just going to be a political speech dressed up as a presidential address.”
The result, he said, is a healthier exercise of editorial independence. “We see more editors now making individual decisions as opposed to saying we’re offering carte blanche access.”
Brotman was equally direct in rejecting claims that the First Amendment somehow requires news organizations to provide an unrestricted platform for every presidential statement. “I say no, no, no. That’s absolutely incorrect,” he said. “What the First Amendment does is present a barrier between the government and our citizens.”
He explained that constitutional protections limit government interference with editorial decisions, not the other way around. “We don’t have something where the government would say you must carry this particular address,” Brotman said. “That’s actually a reversal of what the First Amendment says.”
The Constitution is holding. The culture is not.
Despite the heated political climate, Brotman believes the legal foundations of free expression remain remarkably stable. “The law is pretty stable,” he said. “We see a number of judges, particularly at the federal district level, coming up with some very strong and eloquent opinions about the First Amendment.”
He pointed to the Supreme Court’s continuing support for New York Times v. Sullivan as evidence that longstanding constitutional protections remain secure. “The doctrine of New York Times v. Sullivan, which is one of the bedrock aspects of the First Amendment, is quite stable,” Brotman said.
The greater concern, he argued, is society’s declining ability to engage respectfully despite those legal protections. “You’re absolutely right in terms of the disconnect between the stability of the legal doctrine and the culture that we see around free expression,” he said. “That’s clearly fraying.”
If he were running a local newspaper today, Brotman said he would focus on rebuilding community engagement from multiple directions. “We see data after data showing us that the younger news consumer has not really developed a news habit,” he said. “Showing that the newspaper is open to younger voices might be a good way to help develop a news habit.”
He would also restore a prominent letters section that encourages dialogue rather than simply collecting complaints. “I’d reinstate a letters to the editor page and do it on a regular basis,” Brotman said. “If you have readers responding to an editorial voice, reprint that voice so people understand the nature of the response.”
Finally, he believes local news organizations should revive the ombudsman role, even if it requires partnerships with journalism schools or outside organizations instead of hiring a full-time employee. “I think news organizations can redevelop an ombudsman,” Brotman said, adding that such efforts would create greater accountability while demonstrating a willingness to listen.
Ultimately, Brotman sees the challenge facing local journalism as larger than legal doctrine. It is about restoring confidence that newspapers remain trusted civic institutions. “If readers and viewers say this news organization wants to keep itself honest, they’re actually looking at complaints, responding to complaints and offering us a feedback loop,” he said. “Trust in journalism is declining and needs to be rebuilt.”
|
|
|
Explore Stuart Brotman’s 
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here