News of the death of young Royals’ pitcher Yordano Ventura makes it difficult to be cheery about anything today, but nevertheless it’s important to report — and take satisfaction in — the fact that The Kansas City Star’s editorial page roared back to life today, after months of dispiriting enervation.
Not to overstate the situation, but it’s almost as if flesh that had fallen away from a body was suddenly, almost miraculously, restored.
It’s like a Higher Being intoned the words “Get off your pallet and walk!” — and somehow it happened.
I’ll tell you, the mug shots of six new editorial board members stripped above The Star’s flag on the on today’s front page was a welcome and encouraging sight. (Also pictured was editorial cartoonist Lee Judge, who is not a member of the “editorial board.” Not pictured was publisher Tony Berg, who heads the editorial board.)
An even more encouraging sight was two pages, 14A and 15A, of exclusively local editorial content. In addition to two staff-written editorials (the first in months), new editorial board vice president Colleen McCain Nelson wrote about her vision for The Star’s opinion pages. She summed it up by saying, “The Star is redoubling its effort to take a leading role in civil public discourse and to deliver unique, impactful opinion content.”
To some readers, today’s hoopla might seem over the top, but I think it’s completely warranted in light of the fact the bottom had fallen out of the editorial page, leaving readers to guess if a resurrection was even possible.
**
The lead opinion piece on the editorial page (the left-facing page) was titled “Giving Trump a chance.” The second editorial was titled “Greitens off to strong start with call for ethics reform in Jefferson City.”
Those headlines, along with the text beneath them, told us a lot about the editorial tone and philosophy we’ll be seeing. This will not be a “slash and burn” approach, like it was when the editorial page was under the unofficial direction of longtime editorial writer Yael Abouhalkah. With Nelson, we can expect restrained evaluation of issues and individuals, segueing into strong opinions. Today, Nelson put readers on notice she will taste before she chews and tap before she hammers.
In recent months, The Star has probably lost a lot of readers who vote Democratic. And while the new editorial tack might run off even more of those, I think a tone of moderation will bring back many readers who felt abandoned. It could also attract new readers who haven’t taken notice previously and who have never looked to The Star for guidance on local and national issues.
**
For evidence of the new, measured approach, let’s take a closer look at today’s two editorials.
:: In an email, Nelson told me Dave Helling, political-reporter-turned-opinion-writer, wrote the lead editorial, “with input from the rest of the board.”
The headline, “Giving Trump a chance,” surely will have many local readers grinding their teeth because Trump, with his arrogance and his reckless and contradictory pronouncements, has already exhausted whatever trove of goodwill opponents apportioned him immediately after the election. You have to read the editorial, however, to see The Star is taking a wait-and-see approach to the Trump presidency.
The editorial said that “declaring this a failed presidency before it even begins won’t help our country.” At the same time, it noted the “widespread unease” with Trump that overflowed Saturday in Washington D.C. and several other major cities, and it acknowledged the fear Trump has aroused with his attacks on the press and individuals who have criticized him.
The editorial closed with these thoughtful words:
We are committed to measuring the president’s words and actions against the same yard sticks this newspaper has always used to judge public figures: honesty, transparency, facts. If President Trump succeeds, you’ll read it here. If he fails, we’ll write about that, too.
:: Just as the headline on the editorial about Republican Gov. Eric Greitens could give the impression The Star will support him gung-ho, the editorial itself bestowed qualified praise. It applauded Greitens for his push on ethics reform, including a ban on lobbyists’ gifts to legislators, and it suggested the paper would support Greitens’ call for term limits for all statewide officeholders.
At the same time, the editorial laid into Greitens for hypocrisy by refusing to disclose the sources of about $2 million in anonymous contributions he received and also for accepting $1 million in contributions from a Joplin businessman and his sister.
**
As critical as I’ve been of The Star in recent months, particularly about the demise of the editorial page, I have said all along I was confident Tony Berg had a long-range plan for change. We saw signs of it last year with the addition of the four-page “In Depth” pullout section that runs in the Tuesday-Saturday papers, and today we see it in even more striking fashion.
I don’t think it’s overstating the situation to say that even with its depleted reporting and editing staff…even with the loss of more than 1,500 total employees…even with its parent company lugging around a debt of $900 million…even with print circulation and advertising continuing to decline…this could be — should be — the start of a new, better era for The Kansas City Star and its readers.
Berg deserves a round of applause, and — as today’s lead editorial said about Trump — Berg and Nelson deserve to be given a chance.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
The fact Mary Sanchez is on the Board makes this announcement a non-starter. Her opinion article yesterday “When Fear Rules, Constitutional Rights Gets Trampled” jumps back to Bush, ahead to Trump, while conveniently saying nothing about Obama. I didn’t expect it to, but her presence on the Board in practice means status quo.
I disagree, Lisa…While she will probably be the “farthest left” voice on the board, she will be in the minority. I believe at least four board members — Nelson, Helling, Kraske and new-hire Melinda Henneberger — will be at least moderate voices. Nelson also has authorization to hire an eighth board member, and, of course, we have no idea how that person will lean. This is not a time to wring hands because of how you think any single board member will come down. It’s a time to celebrate the editorial section’s renewed vitality and return to relevance.
Jim:
Well said. But I did not know about Ventura until reading your blog.
I am in shock. So tragic.
Laura
I keep re-reading something on Page 10A, in the Donald Bradley coverage of the Kansas City version of the Women’s March.
Bradley quotes Jolie Justus, a member of the Kansas City Council, as saying: “Call journalists. They are the ones to hold this administration accountable.”
There are many interpretations and responses that could be made to Justus’ statement. One response might be that journalists cannot do the job alone — they need help, cooperation, support and confidence of the citizenry, attributes which have sunk to astonishingly low levels in recent years.
On “Giving Trump a chance,” I must have read a different editorial than you did. I missed the part where the editorial board went “segueing into strong opinions.”
Does “Give Trump a chance” mean the board thinks the cabinet nominees should all be approved (even the “worrisome” ones) in order to give him a chance to implement his policies (assuming he actually has any well-formulated policies)? Does it mean we should let him gut Obamacare and just wait to see how that works out?
In short, the editorial provides absolutely no clarity as to how much one is allowed to oppose Trump’s proposals while “giving him a chance.”
The segue comes later.
One hopes so. Time will tell.
Sorry, but when the first thing this new editorial board says is “Give Trump a Chance”, they’re not getting my attention. The way that this man has behaved, not to mention his fascist tendencies, merits absolutely no respect nor any reason to think he will serve anyone but himself. Also, I’m still pissed off over them having no editorials writers during this past election season. I’m not sure if they ever regain credibility after that debacle.
I said the same — about their ability to regain credibility — back in December, and it remains a looming question. A lot of damage has been done, and a lot of people have moved on to other information and editorial sources. I do want to see The Star succeed, though; it’s still the best source in Kansas City of reliable reporting and commentary.
I agree with Mike; what’s done (in this particular case) cannot be undone.
Any authority the Star possessed before Berg’s captaincy was lost by a) deliberately forcing the previous editorial board to walk the plank pre-election, and b.) subsequently publishing pure pap: Requesting America give a proven liar, fiscal reprobate and admitted sexual predator “a chance”?
Seriously? Was not the President’s behavior the previous year enough indicator as to his intelligence, mien and pathology? Or his earlier vita detailing his multiple dealings with the New York/New Jersey’s mob? And whoa..! What about Billy Bush and all that pussy grabbing?!?!?!
What should we wait for then – His Trumpiness to out-Bush Bush with a creepier Angela Merkel backrub?
Jebus H. Kerist (forgive my overt anger): If this is what is intended to pass for insightful writing in the Star in the future, I’ll take a pass.
“with input from the rest of the board.” Helling has always had potential, and routinely squandered it. Perhaps under adult supervision he can realize his potential.
I remain convinced that #8 will be a docile black person and docile black person #8 and Mary Sanchez, as tokens, will be allowed, as I saw many times in grad school, to write whatever they want. The rest will be subjected to “input from the rest of the board” to achieve that “restrained evaluation of issues and individuals, segueing into strong opinions” that you mentioned earlier.
In essence, Berg is doing what newspapers are supposed to do, provide readers with informed and balanced news and opinion writing. Yael used to do it when he wrote about City Hall, but then he tried becoming a generalist and all he produced were predictably childish screeds that could easily be dismissed.
Strange that Judge isn’t included in the editorial board. He’s the only survivor of the old page and while his stuff can be a bit out there, he’s always been willing to take what he was dishing out (at least he did before they canned him and put an end to the dialog) and quite frankly, his stuff is usually spot on (or used to be, it’s difficult to access now and so I haven’t seen much of it lately).
Thanks for your comments, Will and John…Very good by both of you. (Following Will’s lead, maybe we’ll start bold facing the word Star whenever it refers to our metro daily.)
About Lee Judge…I’m pretty sure cartoonists are ordinarily not members of the editorial board. If they were, Judge would have been a member long ago. For one thing, most cartoonists don’t want any “input from the rest of the board.” They’re the circus performers on the high wire; sometimes they get ovations and sometimes they fall hard…And, yes, that was weird when they fired him and later rehired him. I don’t know if he’s back as a contractor or as a full-time employee. Either way, I’m sure he’s doing OK financially, especially with the Judging the Royals side work.