Recently, I received two anonymous comments on my blog concerning the not-so-popular, to say the least, half-page wrap around advertisements and dividing the A-section into mini-sections.

One comment was particularly critical and so I am responding in this blog.

The comment read: “Count me amongst those who detest that half page wrap around, and everybody I know that reads the Oakland Press hates it as well. You're supposed to be putting out a product that's pleasing to the readers, remember? If it's a matter of revenue, perhaps the staff at the Oakland Press should make concessions and tighten their belts to make ends meet, like they advise everybody else to do. Funny how you never run an editorial about that.”

First, let’s talk about the multiple A-section sections and the wrap around ad. As you might expect, they are related to revenue. The capacity of our press requires the smaller sections to accommodate advertisers who wish to run color ads. It gets a bit technical as to why but that is the basic reason. The advertisements, in whatever form they may take, supply badly needed revenue. So please, bear with us.

Also, The Oakland Press editorial staff has been cut by 50 to 55 percent over the past few years, from a high of about 105 full-time staffers to roughly 45 full time and five part-time workers now in all areas of the Editorial Department — news, photo and copy desk. The figure includes editors.

Obviously, because of the reductions, all staffers, including editors, are doing multiple tasks. Reporters are not only writing stories but editing the stories of other staffers. They also are taking videos of news sources. Often videos, which go online, also yield a still photo to run with the story. Likewise, editors not only read the copy of other staffers but also write from time to time. And we have reporters and editors also doubling on electronically laying out pages.

As far as salary, all Oakland Press staffers have been on a wage freeze for the past three years. In addition, our health care premiums, co-pays and deductibles continue to rise.

We feel we are doing our part to help the company survive the recession. And we are also feeling the bite of the poor economy. So, when we write about sacrifices, we may not have suffered as much as some people who have lost their jobs but we are feeling the pressure and can sympathize.

There’s an old “inside” joke among those in the newspaper business that states “Isn’t it funny how there’s just enough stories to fit into the newspaper every day?”

Obviously, that’s not quite the case. Between reporter generated stories and those available from the wire services, filling the news hole every day is not a problem. But newspapers follow a process that tries to pick the best stories for its readers. Those stories may not necessarily be prize winning articles but, in the judgment of the newspaper, they are the ones that its readers will be most interested in or the ones that most affect its readers.

Generally, that’s case with selecting topics for an editorial. We have a million different subjects we could discuss but we want to write about what seems most interesting or important to our readers.

Usually, that means taking at look at what’s happening locally, in our readership area. These include school bond and community election issues as well as topics that are creating controversy in one of our communities, such as consolidating police departments or sharing city services. Ideally, the topic may be specific to one community but of interest to all our readers, possibly because the issue being debated may also pop up in another municipality.

Of course, sometimes we’ll do an editorial on legislation pending in Lansing or a controversial battle under way in Washington. Usually the topic, although state or national, will definitely have an affect on our readers.

For example, in Lansing we’ve editorialize on proposed new taxes, the deficit budget, road funding, etc. The list is quite extensive.

In Washington we’ll take a look at legislation or action there that also will affect us locally, such as a new tax or the nation’s financial problems.

Sometimes, we don’t take sides on a issue but rather try to make point.

For example, we have never come out in complete support for Obamacare. We’ve said it is a convoluted, voluminous and costly law that definitely needs changing. But there are some good things in it, as we’ve also mentioned. The main point is we need health care reform and hopefully Obamacare will be at least a start. We often discuss family values and frequently do information editorials, such as those that we run during the holidays.

Sometimes we’ll even do an editorial praising some action or group. Generally, we try to make our Saturday editorials more upbeat and positive.

So, there is a definite process that the Editorial Board goes through in selecting topics for our daily editorials and then deciding what stance we want to take on an issue or what point we’re trying to make.

Our goal is to not necessarily get readers to agree with us but to get them to think. After all, as I’ve said countless times, there’s a reason editorials are run on the Opinion Page — it’s because they are opinions, factually accurate but still opinions.

We love getting letters to the editor — for obvious reasons because that’s our goal. The Opinion Page is based on being a forum for readers to express their views.
As expected, one person’s opinion often leads to a response from several people, often expressing the opposite view.

That’s OK. That’s why we established the page.

But there is one type of letter that we’re not real happy to receive — again for obvious reasons. That’s a letter from an irate reader who disagreed with an editorial or opinion and rather than express his own view, he states he is canceling the paper.
We can’t argue with how the individual feels but it is apparent that his actions are short sighted and he is close-minded. The Opinion Page was established as just that, a page for readers to express their views. Certainly not everyone agrees on a certain topic or issue and so dissension is a given.

Probably the most frustrating aspect is dealing with people who can’t stand to have their opinions challenged. Maybe it’s a sign of the times or maybe it’s always been that way, But since I’ve been Editorial Page Editor, such letters have been continuous but fortunately not in heavy volume. Every once and a while I get such a letter.
If, after explaining the purpose of the page and why there are letters he may not agree with, the individual insists on still canceling the paper, there’s not much I can do. However, I believe most people like the debate and the pro and con discussions that the Opinion Page helps foster.

Sometimes, again not very often thank God, I get a letter from a reader who threatens to cancel his subscription for a reason that has nothing to do with the Opinion Page. In fact, it has nothing to do with the Editorial Department.

Recently, one such reader expressed extreme aggravation over the half page ad that frequently covers the left side of the front page. There’s also a full back page ad. He said the ad was irritating and made it difficult to read the section. His solution was to just throw the page and a half advertisement away. Because of his dislike for the advertisement, he wanted to cancel his subscription. He wasn’t the first express disfavor over such advertisements. However, when I explained to him that the ad, as inconvenient as it might be, was providing badly needed revenue to the newspaper, he seemed to mellow a bit. Most people usually understand and their anger wanes. Occasionally, they still cancel the paper but fortunately most people are reasonable and can accept a reasonable answer to their concerns.

There are reasons for the policies that we follow on the Opinion Page and I’ll be happy to explain them to anyone who has a question or comment. I can’t guarantee all readers will accept the explanation but I’ll be glad to listen to their concerns. E-mail me at allan.adler@oakpress.com, call me at (248) 745-4626 or just comment below.

I’ve frequently talked about deadlines and how we usually have to put the Opinion Page out several days in advance of its publication and distribution in the newspaper.
Generally, I work a couple days ahead of time.

For example, on Mondays I’m finishing Wednesday editorials and on Tuesdays I’m working on Thursday editorials.

For Mondays, I must get that Opinion Page out by the previous Thursday to allow the copy desk time to proof it and process it.

However, the early deadlines don’t mean we always run editorials that are several days old. We can’t change everything on a page that’s been prepared but sometimes we can substitute editorials, as we did this past weekend with the tragic shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who was among 18 people shot.

Our hearts go out to the families of those killed and we do pray for the recovery of the representative.

The heinous crimes screamed for an editorial and one that would run ASAP.
The story broke on Saturday and Executive Editor Glenn Gilbert and I discussed what we might say. We waited until Sunday to get more details on the continually evolving story but we had to get something together by 4 p.m. to make the Monday newspaper. Obviously, we did.

I wrote an draft Saturday night and polished it up on Sunday morning. I e-mailed Glenn a copy and we reviewed it over the telephone. Then, we forwarded an edited version to the copy desk, which did their magic and made the change.

The editorial that was scheduled to run Monday will run Thursday, barring something else breaking!

It always takes some fancy footwork but it’s part of the job. To have changed the entire page would have literally brought our copy desk to its knees. It’s just not possible.

But with special efforts and a lot of extra work, we can make substitutions for stories that demand an immediate or as soon as possible editorial.

Editorials don’t always have to take a pro or con stance on an issue. Occasionally, they can be informative or just make a point.

For example, let’s take the City of Troy’s distracted ordinance. Officials announced this week that police would start to ticket drivers who violated the regulation.
The ordinance goes beyond the state law that forbids texting while driving and includes talking on hand-held cell phones and any other activity that would cause a driver to be distracted.

Troy police started officially enforcing the city’s distracted driving ordinance Jan. 1, but it’s been on the books since last July. Since then, they haven’t been issuing tickets but spent the remainder of 2010 posting signs at the city limits and educating drivers about the ordinance.

Although we favored the regulation, acknowledging its value in improving driving safety, the point of an editorial that ran last last year was to praise the city and police department for its efforts in informing the public about the ordinance rather than just issuing tickets.

Like most municipalities, Troy is struggling to balance its budget and the $200 fine for using a cell phone while driving could have brought in some badly needed revenue during the latter half of 2010.

But city officials wanted to be fair to its residents and those in the metro area, so police made 400 stops to warn people that a second offense would result in a fine. And the signs the city has posted at its municipal limits warn people who are just driving through town from out of state to put down their cell phones.

So, for variety among other reasons, The Oakland Press editorials will not always support or oppose a position or issue. Sometimes we want to give out well-earned praise and even just take a neutral stance and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

Sometimes it seems people don’t want to acknowledge the obvious.

I got a call from a reader who was upset because we have run a number of pictures and/or stories about Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township.

She said The Oakland Press favors Peters and is constantly trying to get him publicity. Unfortunately, she also said she didn’t like the representative and the publicity he received from us so she was canceling her paper.

The call was left on my voice mail and she did not leave a name or phone number — she obviously didn’t want to discuss the issue.

I would have told her that it is her option to cancel her subscription but that she was not correct in saying we are constantly trying to make Peters look good.
Yes, we endorsed him in last November’s election but it is not our goal to make he gets positive press.

However, it is The Oakland Press’ responsibility to report news events, some more significant than others.

Some people seem to forget that after the election, Peters represents all of his district’s residents, not just the Democrats, although I realize many Republicans would like to disown him.

However, the bottom line is that Peters is the 9th district’s representative in Congress and as such, what he does can be news. We don’t publish everything that his public relations staff sends us but sometimes there are items that warrant placement somewhere in the newspaper. For example, when he gives out an award or passes on a federal grant to a local group or business. It’s news. It’s not necessarily worthy of the front page but it warrants some mention somewhere — and that occasionally means running his picture, too.

What needs to be stressed is that we are not running any news items for Peters that we haven’t run for past congressmen, whether Democrats or Republicans.

We are merely covering the office — not necessarily the individual.