Three times a week for pretty much the entire school year, I - along with a team of 20 or so other editors and staff - spend upwards of 14 hours straight together. From 11 a.m. until a little after midnight when our work is digitally sent off to the presses, we work to create one issue of The Spectrum.
At the end of this semester, we'll have done it 80 times.
In addition to having our active, bustling newsroom, however, The Spectrum is also an advanced English class all about news-style writing. Everything from how to get the best interviews to how to write a perfect lead is covered, and the written results from those in the class are a lot of what you read in our newspaper.
Another group of aspiring professionals - to whom marketing ad business skills come as easily as writing to others - even sell our advertising, making The Spectrum a financially independent publication.
Between joining the class and observing (or joining) the editing staff, pretty much anyone can get the hang of what goes into putting together a newspaper... almost.
Putting together The Spectrum's (or any paper's) opinion section takes a little more insight. Everything from formulating editorials to choosing what Letters to the Editor to print has a method and philosophy, and every editor in chief handles them a little differently.
Consider this a behind-the-scenes peek at The Spectrum's opinion page.
First, to the far left. In the skinny column running all the way from the top of the page to the bottom is our staff list and colophon. Not only do we list our editors, but also all of our professional staff. Basically, we try to include anyone who doesn't get a regular byline.
The fine print in the box below the names, albeit small and unassuming, explains the fact that views expressed in submitted letters and in columns (like what generally runs in this spot) aren't necessarily the opinion of The Spectrum - they're just the ideas of the person who wrote them.
This spot, to the right of the page, is reserved for a column by a member of the Spectrum staff. I write one every other Wednesday and several of the other editors are part of a regular rotation as well. Occasionally, we open this spot up to guest writers, too.
Then there's the center of the page.
At the top, we run editorials (almost) every issue. Generally there are two, but occasionally we'll split up the space for three shorter ones or run one long one - it all depends on the amount of space deemed necessary to make a point.
Here's where confusion can set in. Without a byline, who writes the editorials? And whose opinions are they?
The short answer is, they're not one person's work at all.
Every production day, during that 14 or so hours of putting together the paper, the senior editors get together for a private meeting. That's me, the three managing editors and our editorials editor - the one person on the staff who is charged with compiling our shared opinions into what you see on the page.
Once we're settled and the door is closed, we stark talking. And we talk about everything from the weather and our commutes into the office to the headlines in the national news and the stories The Spectrum is getting ready to run in the upcoming issue. It's an open forum for anything and everything possible.
Then the tricky part: deeming what's worthy of printed attention.
Today it's Ani DiFranco's church-turned-studio and how pollution hurts so many aspects of our world, whether or not scientists can figure out if it contributes to global warming.
Note that our cartoon is also on the theme of pollution. Oftentimes our political cartoonists like to work on a similar theme as one of our editorials to reinforce the message.
When we sit and talk about what we see in the world around us, both locally and nationally, we consider what people, we think, should be talking about. Sometimes it's concern, sometimes it's congratulatory. We don't look to scorn or offend; we look to open up a topic for greater discussion. If we, as a board, can't agree on an angle (or at least see eye to eye that it's something worth putting the spotlight on) we don't feature it.
Today's pollution editorial is a perfect example. Some in our meeting believe the coalition of scientists ready to say pollution affects global warming is right, whereas others said it was too early to tell. We did, however, agree that this tends to overshadow the fact that either way, pollution is still a major problem.
Who agreed and who didn't? That's why the doors are closed on that meeting. Being able to crate a room where individuals can be heard without repercussion is part of what makes the freedom of the press so poignant - issues can be raised even if they're unpopular.
As for choosing Letters to the Editor to run, I follow a few simple guidelines. Submissions need to be signed (to validate authenticity), they need to have a point and they need to be fairly short. Contrary to what some may think, they do not need to be in agreement with The Spectrum's views and they don't need to be about anything we've specifically covered - the more sides of a conversation we can help start, the better public service we're providing.
In 14 hours, from early morning meetings to late night design work and everything in between, that's how it all comes together - suggestions and submissions are both always welcome. Whether or not you generally agree or disagree with us, I hope we encourage you to think about new things and express your thoughts; that's what it's all about.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
