Every day at The Age, someone asks the question: what are we editorialising on today?

The answer is not always obvious.

On Thursday, when The Age argued in favour of meaningful poker machine reform in Victoria, the decision was easy.

We had a fact-based point of view on a topic that was clearly in the public interest.

Experts say Victoria needs tougher rules to tackle problem gambling.Credit:Flavio Brancaleone

The Victorian government is not doing anywhere near enough to minimise the immense harm caused by the $3 billion of losses (not a typo) on poker machines in this financial year. Our reporter Josh Gordon identified major failings in the state government’s voluntary “YourPlay” scheme. Since the scheme was introduced, losses on poker machines have risen steadily. While Victoria goes backwards, governments in Tasmania and NSW are moving ahead with meaningful reform to reduce problem gambling and prevent money laundering.

The Victorian government and opposition seem more concerned with keeping the powerful pub and club lobby on side by promising precious poker machine revenue will continue to flow to the coffers of clubs without intervention. In November, Royce Millar and Josh Gordon revealed Gaming Minister Melissa Horne and the opposition’s gaming spokesman, Danny O’Brien, had both assured Community Clubs Victoria that there would be no upcoming policy changes affecting gaming machine revenue.

In these stories we identified a clear case of our readers being failed by those in power. We saw it as our duty to hold the government accountable for its decisions, or indecisiveness.

So when our leadership team sat down to decide a topic for the next day’s editorial and determine The Age’s editorial position, as we do each day, the conversation was swift and the end result was a clear argument on why the government should act quickly on meaningful gambling reform.

If only it was that straightforward every day.

I am revealing a long-protected trade secret here, but it is not always obvious to us what the editorial should say each day.

Our leadership team invests a lot of energy into ensuring The Age takes a considered view on the issues our readers care about. Sometimes, though, life is complicated. Issues are nuanced. The right thing to do or say is not always clear.

But that 600-word spot we reserve every day online and in print, on our letters page, remains.

In these situations, we do our best to untangle problems, analyse the components of complex stories and help our readers come to their own conclusions.

In the past, people have told me they believe these articles are personally written by the editor each evening, with a head full of coffee and fingers full of hostility. To reveal another trade secret: that is not the case. If you want to hear from me directly, you’ll have to keep reading this newsletter.

The Age is blessed with talented editorial writers who work closely with the editor and senior journalists to carefully articulate the publication’s viewpoint.

Every day, for almost 170 years, those writers have helped The Age argue its position on thousands of issues.

Lately, many who work here have begun to ask the question: why?

When I began in this role three weeks ago, several Age employees were eager to put forward their views on editorials. Some said they should be axed altogether. Others thought they should be more strident and definitive.

The majority, though, argued that we should focus our energy on the editorials – or “leaders” – that really matter. They argue that instead of producing one per day, every day, into perpetuity, we should focus on one or two per week. They could be more considered, better researched, and limited to the issues The Age really wants to champion on behalf of its readership.

“If we wrote one only per week, that’s still 52 opinions per year,” they say.

I find that argument convincing.

Impact and quality are the attributes most prized by our newsroom. Daily editorials at times seem like a relic from a time when filling an enormous printed newspaper was the most pressing concern.

Writing a powerful editorial is difficult. People rightly expect high standards from The Age and our editorial positions must be rigorously argued. Less frequent editorials would allow that. It would also free up more space in print to air more in-depth viewpoints from our readers, which, personally, I would like to read.

Working in a newsroom every day, one can occasionally forget that the words we write are read by millions of people. But we have a duty to make sure every word counts, whether it’s a news report, a feature, a headline or an editorial.

So when a government sits idle on problem gambling, The Age should be steadfast in its condemnation.

When the truth is less clear, perhaps we should let our news reporting do the talking.

This is the view from inside The Age, but that is only part of the story. I would like to know what you, our subscribers, think. Do you read the daily editorial? Our analytics show that many of you don’t, online at least. Do you think publications should have so many editorials, or is 50 to 100 per year enough?

Please let me know your opinion on our editorials. Nothing has been decided, so your input could determine The Age’s next steps. Get in touch via: [email protected]

Patrick Elligett sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article