Innovations: Developing New Voices

Austin Bay, columnist

[EMAIL: austinbay@worldnet.att.net; WEB: www.austinbay.net

Developing "voice" fascinates me. It's a mix of mystery, talent, persistence and opportunity. Editors can talk about diversity, but new voices are diversity actualized.

New voices are made, not born. Norman Isaacs told me that in 1980 at Columbia University. The quick version of Norman's advice was "you hire brains and character, then you provide guidance." (He was referring to hiring both reporters and opinion page personnel. He was also handing me a shot of bourbon when he said it.)

When it comes to finding "new" regional talent, I think the San Antonio Express-News does an exemplary job. When he was editorial page editor at the Express, Sterlin Holmesly would come across informed, opinionated people who could write with sincerity and with some degree of energy. Then he would give them the space and time to learn to shape those opinions and develop a voice. Lynnell Burkett operates the same way.

MY POINT: An editor not only needs to seek new voices, she needs to help create new voices. Roam the book pages looking for local and regional authors (though, the truth be told, there are many people who can write books who can't write a column).

This next suggestion may sound like schtick but it isn't, it's pure public-serving and self-serving research. The Dallas Morning News might have an essay contest on a subject like: "Why Texas needs an income tax." (or doesn't need one) See what you get, from both SMU and the great unwashed down in Glen Rose and out in Ector County. See if a gem or two emerges.

Then you take the risk. You put The Gem out there in print, eight or nine times, to see if The Gem sticks or fractures (to see if The Gem matures). The new voice (The Gem) is out there, not based on what someone in New York told you, or what someone in LA told you, or what a Neiman Marcus heiress opined, or what someone who knew somebody at the Dallas Observer thought, but on what you've heard (and edited and coached) yourself.

There is talent out there, talent waiting for an opportunity. There are many informed people writing outside the usual circles: Check the web logs ("blogs") online. New voices are taking advantage of the new technology. Editors need to hear them. www.instapundit.com is a superb place to begin. Matter of fact, Doug Bedell of The Dallas Morning News paper did an interesting article on web logs a few months back. He's a resource.

How would I "improve" providing a forum for informed debate?

I'd start off being hard on myself, brutally hard and brutally honest. I'd ask myself:

1. What is "the time frame" for this informed debate? Do I want to have an informed debate about what's hot today or do we debate "long-range" issues? "Long range" debate risks "wasting inches" on what may seem to be obscure topics.
2. As an editor confronting a suddenly hot topic, I'd ask "am I capable of judging who's informed?" The variant: Are the people I have working for me capable of judging who's informed and who isn't? (Who wants to say "I'm inadequate?" But we all know we've strengths and weaknesses.) So I hit the Rolodex. The risk here is the Rolodex spews out "the usual suspects."

Looking for alternatives to the usual:

This is where question (1) can feed (2). If we've devoted op-ed space to a debate of "long range issues," as a crisis emerges or an issue matures we now refine the debate. The ideal situation would be to have two informed commentators address a subject "long range" then tackle it again in the crisis or at the crunch point.

Let's take a theoretical example: The "long-range" debate topic is "U.S. interests in sub-Saharan Africa." Suddenly Liberia crops up on the radar. Crisis time. But hold the Rolodex. Call the two "long-range" commentators who wrote about U.S. interests in sub-Saharan Africa last year. Get them back on the page writing about Liberia. On-line link to the "long-range" essays for context. (In the paper edition, reference them.)

Heck, if one of the commentators deviates from a previously held position, note the deviation. Perhaps you have a third essay that analyzes what the experts said in the "long-range" column and compares it to the specifics of the Liberian crisis. A lot of column inches? You get information, depth, context and "adaptation to new circumstances." It's more useful and fundamentally worthy than the "every 30 minutes another drip" trip you get on cable TV.

What I'd like to see someone try and provide in print is something like the depth "on-line hyperlinking" can add to an opinion piece. That's what the "third party commentary" would try to do. (The hyperlinking also slaughters poseurs who can write but are weak in knowledge and analysis: Web logs constantly catch weak pundits in contradictions.) This is how to beat TV and radio, and maximize your own growing web presence.

9/22/03