by Tony Norman, NSNC President
This is the second of two interviews with NSNC members who began as columnists, but now find themselves balancing their personal voices with the responsibility of keeping a balanced opinion page at their respective publications.
Last month, Bonnie Jean Feldkamp, the Opinion Editor of The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky talked about her transition from freelance columnist to editorial page boss. This month, Ginnie Graham of the Tulsa World in Oklahoma covers similar ground, but with insight into the mechanics of how she does her job in a challenging and very opinionated environment.
Because both Ginnie and Bonnie are hard-working and detail-oriented, they have been rewarded with two of the best jobs in journalism. Their insight will be invaluable to our readership.
Tony: Ginnie Graham, you’re the Editorial Page Editor at Tulsa World, the largest and one of the most important editorial pages in Middle America. Tulsa is bluer than the rest of the state, so you preside over an interesting nexus of community opinion. I imagine things get raucous in editorial meetings. This is a job that is guaranteed to stretch anyone. How has it stretched you so far?
Ginnie: I get daily emails about how we are wrong, losing subscribers, Marxist, communist, socialist and irrelevant. But, at least I know people are reading the pages. Interestingly, I get criticized on both ends of the political spectrum. The far left gets upset that we don’t come down harder and with more frequency on elected officials. The far right condemns us for not parroting what is said on Tucker Carlson’s show. By Oklahoma standards, our editorials are liberal, but reality is we’re in the middle.
Politically, Oklahoma voted for Donald Trump in 2020 with 65% of the vote, and he remains popular. Every elected statewide office and congressional seat belongs to Republicans along with the supermajority of the Legislature. The most difficult part of that backdrop is that constituents don’t hear much from the other side. It gives quick traction to fringe and wedge issues, like critical race theory or book banning. Those end up taking up a lot of space (and air in a room) that would be better spent on issues with more direct effect on Oklahoma, like a significant teacher shortage and poor health outcomes.
Our editorial board consists of five to eight people, depending on our staffing levels. These are typically newsroom editors, company president or a department head. We meet weekly to discuss topics that our publication needs to address editorially. Each day, we have an editorial. Politically, our members are of different parties but are typically in the middle. Even when we disagree, we find some common ground. For example, the members don’t agree on capital punishment, which has been an issue in the state with the resumption of executions. We found agreement on the need for state officials to follow protocols set out by constitutional law.
I’ve always enjoyed that process in our meetings of finding agreement areas. I wish more elected officials and policymakers would have that approach.
In addition, we have a community advisory board of about 26 leaders in Tulsa. It was created about eight years ago to get a more diverse perspective on priorities in our community. The members write two op-eds a year during a two-year term. That’s been a help in having a group of go-to experts when wanting to bounce around editorial or column ideas. The meeting of that board is fascinating because of the varied backgrounds and ideas. It energizes me to listen to these leaders and read their work.
Overall, the community has been supportive of my promotion. I’m the first woman to hold the editorial editor position at the Tulsa World, and that has resonated with quite a few readers of all political persuasions.
Tony: Before you became the editorial editor, you came up through the ranks as a local reporter who specialized in social justice, equity, education and issues centered on and around children. In 2012 you became a columnist and decamped to Opinion where you were able to combine your understanding of those issues with advocacy. Now you run a section where all opinions are solicited. How do you balance the columnizing part of your brain with your larger responsibilities of “fairness” to all, even when you know that both sides aren’t remotely equal?
Ginnie: That’s been the hardest adjustment—managing. Most of my time is spent finding local people to write op-eds and searching for columns. My goal for what to publish is to make our readers think and consider a different perspective or issue. Because our state is so dominated by conservative politics, I want our pages to discuss what our elected leaders are not. That gives the illusion we aren’t fair. However, I make a point to publish conservative views, but those typically are focused on local or state issues — not the far end of national politics.
When I get people upset with an editorial, and they have a view not rooted in fantasy facts, I open up op-ed space. Sometimes, it’s a surprise to them that I would publish their view. But, if they have an argument in favor of a school voucher program or for the elimination of all income taxes, I can publish that. It usually prompts letters to the editor and op-ed submissions from the other side, and that’s the point. As long as the facts are sourced and the writing follows our guidelines, I usually make space.
I still write at least one column a week. If there was one thing I miss being solely a writer, it’s the bandwidth to do more writing. I find myself writing more based on when I’m inspired. Before, I used to have more time to play around with ideas about topics. I have to be more economical with my time.
Tony: When you were a columnist, you always had to keep one eye on your editor to make sure that your intent and message weren’t obscured or lost in the editing process. You probably had a preconceived idea about how the sausages got made. What do you know now that you’re on the other side of that professional divide that you wish you had known when your only responsibility as a columnist was to yourself?
Ginnie: I used to complain about my editor wanting me to write shorter. I would complain, then edit. Now, I’m the editor telling someone to cut out 50 to 100 words to get all the columns, op-eds, letters and political cartoons on the pages. I have more understanding about editors facing the logistics of getting everything to fit in the space.
Part of the job as a columnist was being in the public eye, which prepared me well for this position. I’ve done more public speaking about a variety of topics, depending on the community group. It’s the part of the job I love. It gives me a chance to meet people and encourage them to submit letters and op-eds. So many interesting people live in our communities and don’t have the confidence to share their stories and views. Had I not been a full-time editorial columnist before, the amount of public speaking and interaction would be a surprise.
There is a lot more administrative stuff — meetings with editors, meetings with the editorial board, meetings with community leaders, human resources stuff, daily budgets to send, taking angry phone calls, planning for the week, etc. It’s a lot of moving parts to manage. I’ve learned to sync all devices and be loyal at checking the calendar often to keep up with it all.
Tony: How has your philosophy as a columnist changed since you made the great leap to the top of the masthead? You’re still doing your column even while wielding more responsibility at Tulsa World. How has it impacted your voice? Do you ever feel the temptation to use the dreaded “On one hand, on the other hand…?” False equivalency is the bane of column writers, but it might be a necessary evil for editorial page editors. Are you writing in a more neutral voice about less controversial topics?
Ginnie: When I moved from news columnist to editorial writer, I was purposeful to avoid that temptation of laying out both arguments. In news, I had to be careful not to jump over that line. I found it pretty freeing to not have to worry about that anymore. Some topics I use a forceful voice. For example, I believe strongly in public education and have no qualms in using strong language in opposing those who seek to tear it down. But, some positions in a conservative state won’t make a difference — like abortion. In those divisive issues, I tend to seek positions where people who disagree can find common ground. So, I write a lot about Oklahoma’s top teen birth rate and the need for evidence-based sex education programs and access to contraception. People on both sides of the abortion debate usually agree on prevention, not all, but many.
In addition to the editorial columns, I like to break it up with profile pieces on occasion. One of the most popular columns in the last couple of years was about a local couple who raised money to wipe out medical debt for low-income families. It didn’t have a hard-hitting opinion, but the human interest angle attracted more readers. It helped get the point across about the burdens of medical care in a different way.
Tony: Last year, Tulsa World, like every other news platform in America, marked the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa massacre. There were lots of thoughtful pieces about the importance of memory, the lingering experience of community trauma and our collective responsibility to bravely acknowledge our nation’s racist past. This year, there appears to be an effort to run away from the past. Suddenly, every school board meeting devolves into mayhem as board members, teachers and parents find themselves at odds over Critical Race Theory, an academic discipline most folks don’t encounter until they’re in law school. How have you been able to keep your sanity as an editorial page editor who was probably deluged with passionately argued diatribes, most of which weren’t rooted in reality?
Ginnie: For those not rooted in reality, they aren’t reading our pages. I was asked recently about how we can talk across the political divide. For reasonable people, I think that’s possible with in-person conversations and an eye on finding areas of agreement. I’m an optimist that way. But, for those who fall into the abyss of false realities, I can’t waste my energy trying to reach them. That was most evident during the pandemic with anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers.
When it comes to the Tulsa Race Massacre, we’ve had a reporter covering that as part of his beat since 1995. That was the year the Legislature formed a commission to examine the facts and start the process of amends. It’s been a hard struggle for some white Oklahomans that continues today. Their main argument is that writing about it just stirs up division. Of course that’s ridiculous. What they don’t understand — and don’t see — is that the division has always been there. To understand Tulsa, a person must understand the massacre and the generational trauma that it caused. It’s not just the massacre; it’s everything that came later. There was desegregation, redlining and the construction of an interstate that permanently divided the Greenwood District. It has only been in the last 15 years the area has experienced an economic revitalization, and there are legitimate fears of gentrification.
This history comes up all the time in community life: changes in school attendance patterns, expansions of park trails, construction of a health clinic and economic tax breaks. All bring up historical wrongs to the Greenwood District and Black residents. Civic projects in Tulsa may be viewed through the race massacre lens.
Our organization still gets criticized for “stirring it up” about race. Recently, I wrote a column pointing out the lack of diversity among our elected officials and appointments to public boards and commissions. I’ve written similar pieces in previous years, but this year I got a lot more angry and frustrated calls about it. Just by writing about the facts — a 91% white Legislature with only 22% women in state office — got some people wound up.
My sanity gets challenged for sure. I remind myself that the opinion pages are meant to nudge people toward that understanding. By having more diverse voices on the pages, hopefully that can be a start. It can be where people can learn something, think and, hopefully, grow.
For those who don’t want any change, well, bless their hearts.
Tony: What was your thinking when it came to framing the Tulsa Massacre for your readers?
Ginnie: Hard conversations are coming around the topic of reparations, which is a trigger word for quite a few Oklahomans and our readers. It’s the same argument — why should I pay for something I didn’t do? The meaning of reparations means so many things to different people. There is going to be a lot of work around the issue of how our city makes amends. I’ve found some people who say they are absolutely against reparations but then agree to programs of scholarships or economic tax incentives for Greenwood. The city is starting that process now.
During the massacre’s centennial, our focus was to examine where we are as a city now and how to move forward. Disparities exist in all areas — educational achievement, life expectancy, homeownership, business development and public representation — and that’s what we want to address. As I noted earlier, each of these metrics must be considered against the backdrop of the massacre. For Tulsa, all roads lead back to that original sin. To eliminate those gaps now will start that road to amends created by that trauma from a century ago.
Also, we have an ongoing search for possible mass graves. It was a process that began before the pandemic, so it is still pending. For those who have served as witnesses from the edges, it’s a solemn, spiritual experience.
I want the editorial pages to be a place where people can discuss race and the massacre. It will be done with facts and civility.
Tony: What’s your advice to columnists, opinion writers and ordinary citizens who want to see their opinions appear in your section? Do you find yourself sympathizing more with them since you used to be on their side of the divide?
Ginnie: What I’m looking for is something unique. I get a lot of retired people who want to bash Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Black Lives Matter or whatever national thing is on cable networks. When I turn them down, it sometimes reinforces their viewpoint that I’m uber-biased. I point out that they have no connection to the issue other than observer, and that this take isn’t new. They have the option of writing a letter to the editor. So, I’m not censoring their opinion (as I’ve been accused) but just asking for an edited version of it.
I want the view of ordinary citizens about their lives and experiences. I want leaders to explain their positions and views on actions they take. I want front-line workers to describe the tragedies and triumphs of their jobs. I want youth to tell us what scares, excites and motivates them. The writing I can coach; it’s their views I need.
So, I usually talk people through it. I portray 600 words as easy and stress that this is a conversation, not a college essay. When I edit, I always send versions to them with explanations of changes I made. The best advice I ever got from an editor was to always be able to justify edits. Writers get upset at editors when changes are made for no reason; it tends to change the voice. If more substantial work needs to be done, I sent back with a suggestion and reason why. Every time, the writer is appreciative.
Tony: You seem to put a premium on community involvement. What does that mean when it comes to your section? Are you publishing more community-based writers than your predecessors or about the same? How do you deal with solicitations from folks who want to argue that Biden stole the election, January 6 was no big deal and rolling back the clock to the 19th-century in all things probably wouldn’t be a bad idea?
Ginnie: I spend a lot of time searching for op-eds. Our publication has the Tribune syndication and Cagle Cartoons. I use InsideSources sometimes. Of those, I seek diversity in writers and issues.
I tend to choose local over anything else, but it has to be a quality piece. It has to be more than an observation, and it has to adhere to facts. The arguments over things like stolen elections or election fraud won’t be published. I go down a lot of rabbit holes fact-checking those kinds of claims. One of my favorite complaints from a reader was: “Since when do opinion editors fact check letters and op-eds?”
I use some guidelines that my predecessor did when considering op-eds, which are also applied to letters. These include not publishing material contrary to accepted public health recommendations, not directly addressing other writers, not comparing people to Hitler or parties to Nazis and not making statements that would offend large swaths of people (like LGBTQ+, religious groups, etc.). That weeds out a lot of the submissions that fall into the fringe categories.
Tony: What is the most satisfying part of being Editorial Page Editor? Do you miss the days when your biggest problem was coming up with a viable idea for the next day’s column?
Ginnie: I enjoy moderating the editorial board and community advisory board. I enjoy leading the direction of the editorials and tone of the op-eds. I like seeing how something published in our section makes a difference at the state Capitol, city council or school board. It’s worth it when someone tells me that something they read made them consider an issue differently. It’s wonderful to see a person gain confidence after a piece they wrote appears in the section.
I was fortunate in having a good predecessor who trained me for the job. He remains a person I’ve called on since for guidance. Actually, several former columnists have made themselves available for advice.
One of the nicest things I was told when the announcement was made of my new position, a former Tulsa World columnist whom I greatly admired said, “We all want you to succeed. Call on us.” She referred to the small group of retired editorial writers living in the city. I think of that often when I’m having a bad day. And, I do call on them.
I feel that way about our National Society of Newspaper Columnists. We all want each other to succeed, and there is power in that feeling. We’re a small but mighty group.
That said, I do miss the days where all I had to worry about was my column.
Tony: Who are your journalistic heroes? Do you have a model for what kind of journalism you want to do now that you’re a columnist who runs an editorial page?
Ginnie: My parents didn’t have subscriptions to national publications growing up, so my heroes tend to be local columnists. Some of them became mentors to me when I started as a cub reporter. But, I remember laughing until I cried at the writings of Molly Ivins as a teenager. Some pieces written by Anna Quindlen are still on my go-to list for inspiration. I’m not sure I could ever be as biting as Maureen Dowd, but I love how she puts herself out there and just goes for it.
I would hope my editorial pages show a bit of those styles: hard-hitting, humorous and thoughtful.
