At the 2025 America’s Newspapers’ Mega-Conference in Orlando, a packed room of more than 150 media executives wrestled with one of the thorniest questions facing journalism today: What is the future of newspaper opinion content?
Moderated by E&P Magazine’s Mike Blinder, the panel brought together three leaders from different corners of the industry — David Dunn-Rankin, owner and CEO of D-R Media in Florida; Michael McCarter, vice president and group opinion editor for Gannett and the USA TODAY Network; and Rob Curley, editor of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington. Over the course of a lively hour, they tackled audience polling results, shared personal experiences, and debated whether editorials, endorsements and syndicated opinion pieces still have a role in building reader trust.
The conversation, punctuated by audience questions and interactive polls, highlighted a fundamental tension: How much opinion is too much in a world where readers have endless places to get commentary tailored to their beliefs?
Audience split on unsigned editorials and endorsements
The panel opened by exploring whether newspapers should continue publishing unsigned editorials or political endorsements. In live polling, 52% of the audience said their news organizations no longer publish unsigned editorials, while 35% said they still do.
David Dunn-Rankin explained why his papers abandoned the practice. “Unsigned editorials create confusion,” he said. “We make readers put their name on their letter to the editor for transparency. Yet when it comes to editorials, we don’t sign them. That doesn’t make sense.”
Instead, Dunn-Rankin now writes a weekly signed column under his own name, inviting readers to respond directly to him. Michael McCarter said Gannett allows local market autonomy but has moved away from presidential endorsements network-wide, focusing instead on local voter guides. Rob Curley described his paper's decision to stop endorsing candidates entirely. “Our mission statement is literally in our name — newspaper, not opinion paper,” he said. “The best way for me to make a stand is to tell the truth.”
Local voices remain strong — and essential
The second major topic tackled the role of publishing opinion submissions from local readers, community leaders and officials. Here, the consensus was much stronger: 89% of the audience reported they regularly publish these types of pieces.
Curley spoke about the popularity of “super letters” in Spokane, which are longer letters from readers that can extend beyond the standard word limit and often drive heavy readership. Dunn-Rankin shared how his papers give a platform to sheriffs, commissioners and even local members of Congress, helping to connect civic leaders directly with their communities.
Gannett’s McCarter emphasized that local opinion is a key part of their strategy. “The traffic is good because we’re giving the audience what they’re asking for,” he said. “They’ve told us they want more of their own voices represented.”
Syndicated national opinion pieces are losing favor
The panel then tackled whether newspapers should continue publishing national syndicated columnists and political cartoons. Poll results showed that 69% of the audience still runs national content, but a significant portion — about 25% — has moved away from it.
Todd Benoit of the Bangor Daily News stood up to share his paper’s experience. “We eliminated the national stuff and focused on getting more provocative local commentary,” he said. After endorsing Kamala Harris in a deeply red district and receiving virtually no reader reaction, Benoit realized the old power of editorial endorsements had faded. “That told us no one cared about our opinions any longer.”
Dunn-Rankin explained that his Florida markets strive for a roughly 50/50 balance between right- and left-leaning columns and cartoons. “If someone complains, I tell them to count,” he said, smiling. “And they usually find we’re pretty close.”
Meanwhile, Curley shared that his paper plans to shift national opinion content entirely into the digital e-edition after the presidential election, keeping print editions focused purely on local stories.
Newsrooms wrestle with legal and political risks
When asked whether they had ever pulled an editorial or opinion piece due to legal or political concerns, the majority of the Orlando audience — about 50% — said no, while 28% admitted they had. The question sparked an honest exchange about how newsrooms balance editorial judgment with outside pressures.
Michael McCarter, representing Gannett, was unequivocal in his response. “We don’t back down,” he said. “If it is relevant, if it is written well, and if it is factually correct, we would not back away from it.” McCarter emphasized that editorial standards must be based on truth and quality — not fear of controversy.
David Dunn-Rankin offered a more cautionary perspective, admitting that he had occasionally regretted letting an editorial through without sufficient fact-checking. He recounted a heated encounter with a local mayor, who called him personally to vent frustration over factual errors in a published piece. The experience, Dunn-Rankin said, reinforced the importance of rigorous reporting before publishing any editorial statement.
“Our job is not to be fair — fair is an opinion,” Dunn-Rankin said. “Our job is to be accurate. Accuracy builds trust.”
Should opinion content expand, stay the same or shrink?
The final poll of the morning asked whether newspapers should increase, maintain or scale back opinion content. The room leaned toward maintaining the status quo: 42% said stay the same, 32% said increase, and 23% said scale back.
The final poll of the morning asked whether newspapers should increase, maintain or scale back opinion content. The room leaned toward maintaining the status quo: 42% said stay the same, 32% said increase, and 23% said scale back.
Dean Ridings, CEO of America’s Newspapers, addressed the room directly, cautioning that polarizing content risks alienating crucial audiences. “From a business perspective, audience is critical,” he said. “You lose half your audience when you go too far in either direction.”
Still, the panelists largely agreed that local storytelling — not simply filling pages with ideological battles — was the path forward. “If the journalism is there first, everything else follows,” Blinder said.
Curley summed up the shift simply: “We need to be essential to our communities. Not louder. Better.”
Dunn-Rankin offered a final thought that resonated with the entire room: “All news is biased. Let's just be honest about it — and use that passion to fight for our communities.”
|
|
 |
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here