Editorial: Should local newsrooms publish local opinion pieces and op-eds?
Opinion
At Davidson Local, we say yes and here is why.
We had this very question at Davidson Local just this week. It is a damn good question. Publishing opinion requires discernment, context and a willingness to withstand criticism. But doesn’t local accountability demand it?
When a story is withheld — even if it challenges the reader due to bias — it can create the appearance of a lack of transparency. If we ask the public to trust our source, we must also be willing to allow thoughtful responses to it. We will not knowingly publish FAKE NEWS, but we make mistakes. In the era of social media, any writer should expect kudos, pushback and quick corrections.
Last week, we published a piece by State Senator Steve Jarvis, a local politician, criticizing "large city media". This brought calls from people I love and respect. We are small, rural, and hyper-local, but those same large publications feel like family. As we always do, we included a clear disclaimer stating that the views expressed are those of the author and not Davidson Local. When Davidson Local publishes its own institutional opinion, we follow a process similar to an old ombudsman-style review grounded in facts, discussion and accountability.
These opinion pieces often generate some of our highest readership. That matters not simply because of traffic, but because it reflects engagement. The public deserves to know what leaders and other readers think — even when we disagree. They deserve to know the media sources lean— if they have one. Exposure to those perspectives helps shape and inform civic understanding and healthy debate.
One former editor messaged with advice, noting that since Javris is running for office, he should have paid for an ad to run that Op-Ed. As Jarvis is a sitting public official who keeps the public informed EVEN during off-election years, we debated the notion and decided to err on the side of public interest. It’s nice to see what our electeds are thinking when they aren’t overly polished.
It would also be nice for the same entities that rely on us to share information with the public to support the work that we do 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Reporters routinely cover contentious moments like the State of the Union address and the formal response that follows. Both are inherently subjective. Both present arguments. Both are covered because they matter to the public conversation. Do we avoid covering those because they are opinion-driven? Of course not.
We publish plenty of straight factual reporting. That is our foundation. But facts and civic dialogue are not opposites. Responsible opinion, clearly labeled and ethically handled, strengthens transparency rather than weakening it.
This was just in time for a great conversation, sparked by a LinkedIn question from my former boss, Steven Waldman, about Rebuild Local News. I have deep respect for Steven’s intellect and integrity, and I appreciate that he continues to raise important questions about the future of local news. Interestingly, while that discussion was happening nationally, we were navigating the very same questions locally.
Local news should not fear disagreement. It could model how to engage it.
I had the pleasure of facing candidates, voters, county leaders, and a few people from high school during early voting on Saturday. I think about how those conversations are going to go when we share something “controversial.”
My answer. Transparency builds trust. And trust is everything.
For Davison Local—Local is our collective bias.
