An Extra Nickel's Worth

The New York Times has no reputation for sudden innovation, so it came as something of a surprise when, last September, the paper introduced an "Op-Ed" page, journalist's jargon for an opinion page opposite the editorials. The addition was a notable change for the Times. Since then, it has not only become one of the most closely watched and sought-after forums for comment in U.S. daily journalism but probably the best Op-Ed page anywhere.

The Op-Ed format was first popularized by Editor Herbert Bayard Swope on the Pulitzers' old New York World in the early 1920s. It is now used by many U.S. papers, which usually fill it with syndicated columns. At the Times, that particular page had for decades been the repository of the obituaries. To begin the new feature, the death notices were banished to the second section, making room for a dizzying diversity of views and opinions that perhaps only the Times, with its great prestige, could bring together. Regular Columnists James Reston, C.L. Sulzberger, Russell Baker and Tom Wicker share the space with outside contributors, who differ widely in political philosophy (from New Leftist Herbert Marcuse to Right Wing Libertarian Murray Rothbard) and in personality (from Burma's ascetic rebel U Nu to baseball's syntax-smashing Casey Stengel).

Stick to Necking. Controversy has been a prime objective of Op-Ed since its inception, and the page now draws nearly as many letters to the Times as the paper's editorials. Although some of the political contributions have been a bit pedantic, other offerings have produced delight, drama and deliberate outrage. The most inflammatory essay to date was an open letter to his college-bound son by a Southern physician, Dr. Paul Williamson. Stick to studying and necking and avoid revolution, wrote the father, or "expect to get shot. Mother and I will grieve, but we will gladly buy a dinner for the National Guardsman who shot you." More than 300 letters poured in to the Times, most of them attacking the doctor. Not far behind in reader response was a polemic by Roman Catholic Militant L. Brent Bozell, who provoked an outburst by arguing that birth control and abortion reduced sex to mutual masturbation.

By a judicious juxtaposition of contributions, Op-Ed has been able to create a contrapuntal dialogue of ideas. West German Chancellor Willy Brandt defended his treaty with the Soviet Union as a necessary forerunner of general East-West detente; Arthur Goldberg subsequently scolded Brandt's U.S. critics, notably George Ball, for endangering the Ostpolitik effort, and got scolded in turn by Ball for trying to foreclose discussion of Brandt's policies. The Times became the first major paper to pinpoint an ideological split within the ranks of American conservatives when Op-Ed allowed Economist Rothbard, a onetime contributor to William Buckley's National Review, to criticize Buckley for abandoning the individualistic concept that the best government is the least government. In a subsequent solicited rebuttal, Buckley retorted that Rothbard failed to make a moral distinction between Nikita Khrushchev and Dwight Eisenhower.

Articles by less famous polemicists have also had considerable impact. From exile in Algiers, Black Panther Richard Moore wrote a piece accusing Panther Huey P. Newton of substituting slogans for action, castigating the Times as "the organ of the ruling class" and condemning the "Fascist Farce of a Trial Presided over by the evil likes of [Judge] John Murtagh," from whose court Moore had fled. As the Times clearly intended, its Op-Ed has provided an occasional beam of fresh light on familiar topics. Edward C. Banfield, a professor of government at Harvard, described "the lower class" as not necessarily poor, not necessarily black, but clearly distinguishable from the working class because of its "inability (or, at any rate, failure) to take account of the future and to control impulses." Shortly after Charles Reich provided Op-Ed with a capsule summary of his forthcoming The Greening of America, Philosopher Marcuse complained in print, somewhat surprisingly, that Reich's euphoric dream treatise "transfigures social and political radicalism into moral rearmament."

Inevitably, Op-Ed's quest for originality sometimes falls flat. Getting Britain's Racist M.P. Enoch Powell, whose political knowledge of Viet Nam is at best limited, to write about U.S. foreign policy did not make much sense journalistically. On other occasions, the Times seems to encourage those who disagree with its editorial policy to put their worst foot forward. Superhawks propounding a pro-military Viet Nam policy on the page, for instance, tend either to be poor writers or to propose badly organized arguments.

More Palatable. Op-Ed is the brainchild of Editorial Page Editor John Oakes, who for eight years before it began had been arguing in memos to the Times's publishers that the paper needed a wider range of opinions than its columnists provided. Publisher Arthur O. ("Punch") Sulzberger took the occasion of a price hike from 100 to 150 last fall to introduce Op-Ed, thereby giving readers a small bonus for their nickel. While Oakes has overall command, operating responsibility for the page rests with Harrison Salisbury. Last July, Salisbury started soliciting contributions for the page, offering a modest $150 fee. He leaned on big names at the start to attract attention, but consistently stressed "the interest and importance of an idea" regardless of an author's fame.

Roughly one of every four published essays is unsolicited; about 25 volunteer contributions arrive on Salisbury's desk every day. The initially heavy--perhaps too heavy--emphasis on politics has expanded into a broader and more palatable mix. Recent Op-Ed pages have included such bemusingly bizarre articles as an ecological dialogue (in free verse) between Technologist R. Buckminster Fuller and Senator Edmund Muskie and a tense, dramatized first-person account by a white churchman of a late-night subway ride through Harlem.

Status Cachet. In trying to overcome the problem of the Times's gray, visually intimidating makeup, Salisbury has recently brightened Op-Ed's appearance by the use of more pictures and cartoons. In Washington, particularly, an appearance on the Op-Ed page has become a status cachet. Salisbury admits that "it's become a prestige thing for bureaucrats. We have to fight them off." White House Staffers Robert Finch, Herbert Klein and William Safire have practiced what some readers regard as blatant pro-Nixon puffery in their Op-Ed contributions, but Salisbury insists that he has returned the worst such examples for rewrites and made "ruthless revisions" in others to purge them of their most obvious public relations touches. Contributions from both extremes of the political spectrum remain the most turgid in style, but overall, says Salisbury, "the quality of the writing has improved. We're much more severe now in what we accept. Interest has been aroused." With only slight exaggeration, he adds: "We have no problem tapping anyone in the world."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.