Journalism Studies, Volume 6, Number 1, 2005, pp.

61
71

Source and Content Diversity in Op-Ed Pages:

assessing editorial strategies in The New York
Times and the Washington Post

ANITA G. DAY and GUY GOLAN Louisiana State University, USA

ABSTRACT A content analysis of opinion editorial (Op-Ed) articles published in the Washington Post and The New
York Times between 1999 and 2003 was used to assess source and issue stand diversity on three salient issues.
The study revealed that editors in both newspapers allowed only limited diversity in its source selection and issue
stand on the discussion of gay marriages, affirmative action and the death penalty. The authors identify the lack of
diversity as inconsistent with the original stated purpose of the Op-Ed as a forum for the articulation of diverse
viewpoints on salient issues and call upon future studies to further examine diversity of sources and issue stands in
Op-Ed pages.

KEY WORDS: Content Analysis, Editorial, Journalists, Opinion Op-Eds, Public Debate

Introduction 2002; Wattenberg and Brians, 1999). This study

The importance of the opinion editorial (Op-Ed),
a recent forum in the marketplace of ideas for
fostering the exchange of diverse issue stands,
has received limited attention from mass com-
munication scholars (Ciofalo and Traverso,
1994). Further, the role of the press in fostering
public debate has been ignored in research on
the international press. Instead, research has
concentrated largely on the role of the press
as emerging media systems in countries such
as Romania (Gross, 1996) and South Africa
(Tomaselli, 1989). These studies examine
the press as it is transformed from a state-
sanctioned political arm to one that reflects a
traditional Western commercial composition.
Other studies of the international press in
Germany (Humphreys, 1990) and Japan (Kasza,
1993) concentrate on defining the role between
the state, public policy and the mass media.
Even studies that address the role of the press in
the United States have largely concentrated only
on the ability of the press to foster political
participation rather than debate (Ansolabeherre
et al., 1994; Cook, 1998; Gilliam and Iyengar,
2000; Kahn and Kenney, 1999; Valentino et al.,
hopes to expand previous research and examine
the role of the press in political debate in the
United States by examining several public
affairs issues in the Op-Ed pages of two major
national US papers.
The particular question here is the relative
success of the Op-Ed as a forum for public
officials, academics, experts, advocates and other
forms of public intellectuals to articulate diverse
opinions on salient issues. Do newspaper gate-
keepers select Op-Ed contributions that reinforce
the paper’s worldview as typically expressed by
the paper’s columnists or do guest contributors
provide opposing views of an issue?
The current study examined Op-Eds that
appeared in The New York Times and the
Washington Post between January 1999 to De-
cember 2003 concentrating on the issues of the
death penalty, gay marriage and affirmative
action.
Coverage of these issues may influence the
public agenda of issue (McCombs and Shaw,
1972) and/or attribute saliency (Golan and
Wanta, 2001; Kiousis, 2003) as predicted by the
agenda-setting hypothesis.

ISSN 1461-670X print/ISSN 1469-9699 online/05/010061-11 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1461670052000328212
62
If Op-Ed editors employ a strategy of source
and content diversity, they are likely to provide
readers with a balanced exposure of competing
issue stands. This is important as the original
purpose of the Op-Ed was to provide a vehicle
for divergent opinions from that normally ex-
pressed by the news and editorial comments of
the newspaper (Salisbury, 1988). The current
study aims to contribute to Op-Ed research by
analyzing the source and content diversity
strategies of Op-Ed editors from The New York
Times and the Washington Post in order to
determine if the Op-Ed page of the newspaper
provides an open forum for debate on salient
issues.
A Forum for Diverse Issue Stands: a review of
literature
The Opinion Editorial
Within a year of The New York Times ’s launch of
its Op-Ed page in September 1970, several major
newspapers such as the Washington Post , the
Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times
(Stonecipher, 1979) had established their own
Op-Ed page within the same location of the
newspaper (Salisbury, 1988). The function of the
Op-Ed was designed as a forum for the articu-
lation of multiple ideas in an attempt to promote
public debate on salient issues. ‘‘The page
would offer a window in the world, particularly
that scene which for one reason or another . . .
was not present on its news and editorial
comment’’ (Salisbury, 1988, p. 317).
The Op-Ed’s purpose in these national news-
papers then was to provide experts, the public
and policy makers a space to present and argue
different sides of the public agenda (Stone-
cipher, 1979). Specifically the objective of the
Op-Ed for The New York Times was ‘‘to afford a
greater opportunity for exploration of issues
and presentation of new insights and new ideas
by writers and thinkers who have no institu-
tional connection [with the paper]’’ (The New
York Times , 1970, p. 42).
Rosenfeld (2000) contends that The New York
Times hoped to attract new readership through
increased content diversity. According to Rosen-
feld, The New York Times expected to shake the
ANITA G. DAY AND GUY GOLAN
liberal counterpoints of the paper’s editors by
hiring conservative non-journalist, William Sa-
fire as a regular Op-Ed columnist (2000).
Rosenfeld said, ‘‘good Op-Ed pages now pro-
vide an entry into the debate for experts,
dissenters, and survivors of earlier battles’’
(2000, p. 7).
Despite the importance of the Op-Ed page as
a journalistic forum for diverse opinions from
expert and private citizen alike and its subse-
quent criticisms, mass communication scholar-
ship has largely ignored the Op-Ed page. As
Ciofalo and Traverso (1994) state: ‘‘the issue of
the public forum in the Op-Ed page has been
largely unexplored except by the practitioners
themselves and media critics’’ (p. 54). Little else
has changed in the past decade. A limited focus
in major journalism and communication aca-
demic journals on the Op-Ed has produced a
dearth of research on the role of the Op-Ed to
further a diversity of ideas.
Rather, research on Op-Eds has centered on
advertisements in Op-Ed pages (Brown et al.,
2001), public relation strategies on Op-Ed pages
(Smith and Heath, 1990), and political prefer-
ences between publishers and editorial page
editors (Kapoor and Kang, 1993).
Media Gatekeeping
As noted by Shoemaker et al. (2001), the gate-
keeping concept is one of the oldest in the field
of mass communication. As described by the
authors, gatekeeping refers to the process by
which potential news is narrowed and shaped
into the actual news that is transmitted by the
news media (p. 233). David White (1950) ap-
plied psychologist Kurt Lewin’s (1947) concepts
of item selection around the dinner table to the
field of mass communication. White’s study
revealed that news content had to pass through
the ‘‘gates’’ of the editor before it could be news.
He found that the news editor’s (‘‘Mr. Gates’’)
personal beliefs and his knowledge of news
routines were influential on the news selection
process. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) explain
further that several key variables shape the
gatekeeping process: the personal views and
roles of media workers, media routines, media
organizations, external pressures, and ideology.
SOURCE AND CONTENT DIVERSITY IN OP-ED PAGES
The news selection process is also derived
from the socialization of reporters to the norma-
tive behavior of the organization’s structure
(Tuchman, 1978). This allows for the ‘‘right’’
news to be reported and the ‘‘right’’ manner of
its interpretation to be presented. This helps
equalize, or balance, the meaning of reality and
maintain the status quo. As such, Stephen Reese
(1994) observed that in US television news,
gatekeepers implicitly define the limits of dis-
course on an issue and help maintain the status
quo by their selection of expert and commenta-
tor sources. Based on the identified purpose of
the Op-Ed section as a forum for the expression
of diverse viewpoints on salient issues, it is
likely that opinion gatekeepers would aim to
provide their readers with a diversity of both
source and issue stands.
Diversity in the Op-Ed
A study by Kapoor and Kang (1993) looked at
the political preferences of editorial page editors
and publishers to find that publishers did not
exercise monolithic control on editorial content.
Editorial page editors were free to provide
divergent political views on the editorial pages
of the paper in contrast to the views held by the
paper. A study by Golan and Wanta (2004)
found such diversity in the strategy employed
by Op-Ed editors of The New York Times con-
cerning the Israel
Palestine conflict. The results
indicated diverse content and source issue
stands between newspaper columnist and guest
contributors on this single issue.
Yet, a Song (2003) study questioned whether
ideological orientations of news media rather
than content and source strategies of editors
serve to guide the selection of Op-Ed pieces.
They do. Finding that Op-Ed pages tend not to
provide diverse perspectives in relationship to
the ideological orientations of the newspaper,
issues of public interest were left to slant off in
one direction. The blame comes from the witting
or unwitting selection of guest contributors to
the Op-Ed pages by Op-Ed page editors.
Croteau and Hoynes (1994) found specific
instances of limited source diversity in televi-
sion on the public affairs programs Nightline
and the McNeil Lehr Newshour. With a parade
63
of ‘‘usual suspects,’’ expert opinion on these two
programs closely followed that of the US gov-
ernment’s perspective. As Croteau and Hoynes
(1994) suggests, experts who appear on public
affairs programming, by invitation only for one
reason or another, limit debate and allow it to
fall within a short range of opinions.
Like Croteau and Hoynes (1994), Benjamin
Page’s (1996) criticism of the debate in the
Op-Ed section of The New York Times brings to
focus the limits of such a forum for robust
debate on public affairs issues in the nation’s
leading newspaper when source and content
diversity are virtually non-existent. Page refers
to the debate on the Op-Ed pages of The New
York Times in the autumn of 1990 concerning the
Gulf War as an illusionary representation of a
full and vigorous debate on the war. As a
multitude of space was devoted to the issue
with letters to the editor, editorials and columns,
little source and content diversity in the discus-
sion of this issue was to be found. Instead of a
multitude of diverse voices, most comments
were filed by Times editors, regular columnists
employed by the Times or guest columnist
holding mainstream positions in officialdom or
academia.
The current study aims to expand the current
scholarship on debate in the Op-Ed pages by
moving beyond the examination of a single
issue (Golan and Wanta, 2004) to the analysis
of three issues in two leading national news-
papers.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to analyze the
content and source diversity strategy of The New
York Times and Washington Post Op-Ed editors
on the issues of affirmative action, the death
penalty and gay marriage. As noted by Green-
berg (2004), these issues were all salient in the
most recent presidential election as the result of
half a century of increasingly heated partisan
battles between Democrats and Republicans in
America’s political debate and culture war on
faith, family values and how people should live
their lives. The period of examination in this
study is marked by a series of news events
captivating the public’s attention to this culture
64
war including the execution of Oklahoma City
bomber Timothy McVeigh, the Massachusetts
Supreme Court ruling upholding gay marriages
and the Supreme Court decision upholding the
Michigan Law School affirmative action admis-
sions policy. If the Op-Ed pages are truly
designed to promote public discourse on issues
of public policy, then they ought to include
opinion articles that articulate diverse issue
stands. Therefore, we are trying to answer the
following research questions:
R1: How balanced was the selection of guest
columnist to newspaper columnists in the
Op-Ed pages of The New York Times and
Washington Post ?
R2: Did the Op-Ed editors select guest contri-
butors whose views reinforced the issue
stands of its columnists or allow for diver-
gent opinions?
A Content Analysis of The New York Times
and the Washington Post
A content analysis of Op-Ed articles published
in The New York Times and the Washington Post
between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003
was conducted in the current study. The unit of
analysis was the individual Op-Ed article. Using
the key words ‘‘gay marriage,’’ ‘‘affirmative
action,’’ ‘‘death penalty’’ and ‘‘editorial’’ on a
Lexis-Nexis search, the current study identified
150 Op-Ed articles from the selected period.
More specifically, 38 articles dealt with gay
marriages, 67 with affirmative action and
45 with the death penalty. It ought to be noted
that these articles represent a population rather
than a sample. The number of articles analyzed
seemed sufficient when compared to other
comparable studies from recent years. For ex-
ample, Hallock and Rodgers (2003) used
142 Op-Ed articles from two newspapers in
their analysis, Golan and Wanta (2004) analyzed
the diversity of content in 42 Op-Ed articles
published in The New York Times and Song
(2003) analyzed 196 Op-Ed articles in his analy-
sis of diversity in the Washington Post and
Washington Times .
All 150 Op-Ed articles were coded for the
following variables:
ANITA G. DAY AND GUY GOLAN
. Newspaper. Whether the Op-Ed was published
in The New York Times or the Washington Post.
. Type . Whether the Op-Ed was written by a
newspaper columnist or by a guest contribu-
tor.
. Writer. Whether the article was written by a
journalist (columnist), politician, academic,
expert, advocate, religious leader or other.
. Issue. Whether the article dealt with gay
marriages, affirmative action or the death
penalty as the primary subject of the Op-Ed.
. Issue impact. Whether the article discussed the
social, moral, political, legal, individual or
other impact of the issue. For example, an
article that argued ‘‘These judicial pronounce-
ments, therefore, constitute an appalling ab-
negation of popular sovereignty . . . courts
that deny morality as a rational basis for
legislation are not only undermining the
moral fabric of society, they run directly
counter to actual legislative practice in innu-
merable important areas of society’’ (Raul,
2003) was coded as discussing the legal
impact of the issue.
. Affective. Whether the article was negative,
neutral or positive towards the issue it dis-
cussed. For example, an article that argued
‘‘In our racially stratified society, diversity is a
necessary part of an effective college educa-
tion. To attain such diversity, in turn, the
explicit use of race in the admissions process
is necessary’’ (Loury, 2003) was coded as
positive based on its support of affirmative
action. An article arguing ‘‘affirmative action
metastasizes into a shapeless component of
the spreading racial and ethnic spoils system
. . . such arithmetic would have suited Nazi
Germany’s Nuremberg laws. It mocks Amer-
ica’s premises’’ (Will, 2001) was coded as
negative based on its opposition to affirmative
action.
. Criticism of individual. Whether the article
criticized an individual politician, judge, re-
ligious figure, advocate, academic, individual
citizen or other. For example an article that
argued ‘‘George W. Bush . . . from the very
beginning, his often maladroit maneuvering
on gay issues has looked more like triangula-
tion than principle’’ (Rauch, 2000) was coded
as critical of a politician.
SOURCE AND CONTENT DIVERSITY IN OP-ED PAGES
. Criticism of organization. Whether the article
criticized a political, legal, religious, advocacy,
academic or other body or organization or
society as a whole. For example an article that
argued ‘‘the government had no business
policing people in their bedrooms . . . All of
our amendments have been designed to ex-
pand the sphere of freedom, with one notor-
ious exception: prohibition. We all know how
that absurd federal power grab turned out’’
(Simpson, 2003) was coded as critical of the
government (political organization).
. Issue outcome. Whether the article called for a
change in status quo or supported the status
quo. For example, an article that argued ‘‘But
if the meaning of marriage and the right to
marital status is sufficiently defined with the
reference to ‘autonomy of the self . . . [in]
certain intimate conduct,’ what principled,
non arbitrary ground is there for denying
the right of marriage to, say, a threesome
whose members insist that it is necessary for
their self-fulfillment through intimacy?’’ (Will,
2003) was coded as supportive of the status
quo since it argued for the continuation of the
current policy on gay marriages. An article
that argued ‘‘. . .[the] United States . . . moral
leadership is under challenge because of . . .
the death penalty and violence in our society
. . . [and that] there is no compelling statistical
evidence that the death penalty is a greater
deterrent to potential criminals than other
forms of punishment . . . [since] some
300 million of our closest allies think capital
punishment is cruel and unusual and it might
be worthwhile to give it some further
thought’’ (Rohatyn, 2001) was coded as a
call for a change in status quo since it argued
Table 1. Distribution of Op-Ed articles between columnists and guest writers
Paper Writer Gay marriage
New York Times Guest 58% (12)
Columnist 42% (9)
Total 100% (21)
Washington Post Guest 59% (10)
Columnist 41% (7)
Total 100% (17)
65
for a reexamination of current polices regard-
ing the death penalty.
In order to ensure inter-coder reliability of the
content analysis, a second coder independ-
ently coded 10 percent of the Op-Ed articles
(15 articles). Inter-coder reliability scores aver-
aged 0.81 based on the Holsti formula (Holsti,
1969). This mean did not include the inter-
coder reliability scores for the newspaper and
type variables that produced perfect alpha
scores of 1.0.
Source Diversity: who spoke
Table 1 displays the source distribution of Op-
Ed articles between columnist and guests for
The New York Times and the Washington Post .
The results indicate that the two papers adopted
different strategies in their selection of sources
in the discussion of the three issues. On the issue
of gay marriage, The New York Times allowed for
a diversity of sources with 58 percent of the Op-
Ed articles written by guest contributors. The
paper’s diverse use of sources is also reflected in
its coverage of the death penalty issue with
55 percent of Op-Ed articles written by guests
and 45 percent by columnists. On the issue of
affirmative action, The New York Times ’s editors
turned the discussion over to others with
79 percent of the articles written by guest
contributors, while only allowing 21 percent of
the issues discussion for their columnists. Over-
all, 65 percent of Op-Ed’s concerning the three
issues were written by guest columnists while
35 percent of the articles were written by the
newspaper’s columnists. These results indicate
Affirmative action Death penalty Total
79% (22) 55% (12) 65% (46)
21% (6) 45% (10) 35% (25)
100% (28) 100% (22) 100% (71)
23% (9) 18% (4) 29% (23)
77% (30) 82% (19) 71% (56)
100% (39) 100% (23) 100% (79)
66
that The New York Times adopted a strategy of
allowing for a diversity of sources.
The results in Table 1 suggest that The New
York Times adopted a more encompassing di-
verse source strategy than the Washington Post .
While Op-Ed coverage of gay marriages was
fairly balanced between guest contributors
(59 percent) and regular columnists (41 percent),
such was not the case for the other two issues.
The analysis shows that the majority of Op-Ed
articles that dealt with affirmative action were
written by Washington Post columnists (77 per-
cent). The same strategy applied for the death
penalty issue where Washington Post columnists
accounted for nearly all Op-Ed articles
(82 percent). The findings indicate that overall
the Washington Post did not allow for diversity
of sources as 71 percent of the overall Op-Ed
articles were written by the newspaper’s colum-
nists. This number is much higher than the
comparable 35 percent found in The New York
Times .
The study results also identify academics and
advocates as the key guest writers of Op-Ed
articles in both the Washington Post and The New
York Times . Of guest Op-Ed articles, 52 percent
were written by academics, 32 percent were
written by advocates, 9 percent were written by
politicians, 2 percent by religious figures and
6 percent by others.
Content Diversity: what they said
Moving beyond the analysis of source diversity,
the current study found interesting results
relating to diversity in content. Analyzing the
comments made by the two columnists that
wrote more on one issue than other columnists
at each paper finds repetitive frames used to
justify each writer’s position.
The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert
used several of the same criticisms against the
death penalty. Herbert painted the state of Texas
in three stories as a zealous killing machine. His
stereotype of inept public defenders are found
in three stories while four stories justify abolish-
ing the death penalty because it has been
applied to the mentally ill.
Herbert’s criticisms of Texas include state-
ments such as ‘‘Texas . . . champion of the
ANITA G. DAY AND GUY GOLAN
Western World when it comes to executions. . .
the states awful appellate review system, a
maddeningly dysfunctional apparatus. . .’’
(2000) to ‘‘. . .Texas, a state that all but worships
at the altar of capital punishment. . .’’ (2002) and
‘‘Only the United States, Congo and Iran con-
tinue to execute people for offenses committed
when they were juveniles. But that is not the
issue on which Mr. Richardson’s case */and
life */hinges. His lawyer, Gino Battisti, is trying
to convince the courts that it is a cruel and
unusual punishment, and therefore a violation
of the Eighth Amendment, to execute someone
who is mentally retarded’’ (Herbert, 2001).
Writing for the Washington Post , William
Raspberry defined the issue of affirmative
action largely in black and white terms only.
Raspberry made 64 references in nine stories on
affirmative action framing the issue as one of
blacks against whites compared to four frames
of other minority designations, most notably
Hispanics and Asians. Several examples in-
clude: ‘‘blacks lag behind whites,’’ ‘‘white run
institutions,’’ ‘‘black kids,’’ ‘‘black affluence,’’
‘‘black households,’’ ‘‘whites,’’ ‘‘blacks,’’ ‘‘black
children,’’ ‘‘white families,’’ ‘‘black achievement
gap,’’ etc. (1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a,
2001b, 2002, 2003a, 2003b).
Table 2 provides a systematic display of the
affective dimension of the comments provided
above. This dimension measured whether the
Op-Ed article discussed gay marriages, affirma-
tive action or the death penalty in a negative,
neutral or positive manner. An article critical of
affirmative action was coded 1 indicating nega-
tive coverage. A neutral article was coded 2 and
an Op-Ed that was supportive or positive of
affirmative action was coded 3. Therefore, Op-
Eds critical of gay marriages, affirmative action
or the death penalty would have means lower
than 2 and those articles favoring the issues/
programs would rank higher than 2.
The results reflected in Table 2 suggest that
Op-Ed editors pursued a limited diversity
strategy, allowing slightly divergent opinions
on these issues. The only real exception was the
discussion of affirmative action in the Washing-
ton Post where columnist and guest greatly
differed in opinion (1.36 differential) and The
SOURCE AND CONTENT DIVERSITY IN OP-ED PAGES
Table 2. Means of issue coverage (affective)a
Issue coverage (affective) Writer
Gay marriage Guest
Columnist
Differential
Overall
Affirmative action Guest
Columnist
Differential
Overall
Death penalty Guest
Columnist
Differential
Overall
a
1 /negative; 2/neutral; 3 /positive.
New York Times ’s discussion of the death penalty
(0.91 differential).
The results in Table 2 suggest that The New
York Times allowed for some diversity of opinion
in Op-Ed articles that dealt with the issue of
gay marriages. While The New York Times
columnists were unanimously supportive of
gay marriages (3.0), their guest contributors
seemed more neutral (2.6). Still, it is clear that
Op-Ed articles published in The New York Times
on the issue primarily argued in favor of
gay marriages with an overall mean of 2.81
suggesting a strong liberal orientation in the
discussion of the gay marriage issue. For exam-
ple, Nichols Kristof (2003) writes: ‘‘The bottom
line is that same-sex love is a mystery far
more subtle than just a matter of biblical
injunction */just as interracial love has turned
out to be . . . someday, we will regard opposition
to gay marriage as equally obtuse and old
fashioned.’’
An analysis of the affective scores for the
Washington Post point to similar results. While
the paper’s Op-Ed columnist were strongly in
favor of gay marriages (2.71), guest contributors
averaged a lower mean of 2.3. Overall, Op-Ed
articles published in the Washington Post aver-
aged a mean of a 2.47 suggesting a more neutral
discussion of the gay marriage issue than The
New York Times . For example, Jonathan Rauch
(1999) writes: ‘‘It has never been clear to me why
discouraging stable gay relationships in favor of
sex in parks and porn shops is good for the
American family, or anyone else.’’
67
New York Times Washington Post
2.60 2.30
3.00 2.71
0.40 0.41
2.81 2.47
2.54 2.77
2.35 1.41
0.19 1.36
2.50 1.73
1.91 1.10
1.00 1.75
0.91 0.65
1.50 1.22
The results indicate that on the issue of gay
marriages, both papers allowed for some diver-
sity of opinion with a mean difference of 0.40
between the means of guests and columnists.
The results in Table 2 indicate different find-
ings concerning diversity of opinion in Op-Ed
articles dealing with affirmative action. The New
York Times columnist (2.54) averaged means that
were very close to those of guest contributors
(2.35), suggesting that the majority of articles
were in favor of affirmative action. This is
consistent with the overall coverage mean score
of 2.5. Clearly, Op-Ed articles on the issue were
not very diverse in their affect towards the
affirmative action issue. The opinions of guest
contributors clearly reinforce those of the co-
lumnists. For example, Orlando Patterson (2003)
writes: ‘‘As pragmatic public policy, it is easy to
show that the benefits of affirmative action far
outweigh its social or individual costs.’’
Table 2 shows a high degree of opinion
diversity in the Washington Post regarding
affirmative action. While the paper’s columnists
were mostly critical of affirmative action (1.41),
their guest contributors seemed more in favor of
the issue (2.77). The 1.36 difference in means
between columnists and guests suggests a high
degree of diversity of opinion with columnists
highly critical of the program and guests highly
supportive. For example, Richard Cohen writes:
This is the pernicious aftertaste of affirmative
action */and its champions ought to ponder it
long and hard . . . other proponents of affirmative
action ought to wonder whether, in the long run,
68
what they are affirming is not a concept of justice
but instead a negative stereotype. (2002, p. A23)
The overall means on affirmative action once
again suggest that The New York Times (2.5)
allowed more liberal Op-Ed contributions than
the Washington Post (1.73).
The results in Table 2 indicate that the highest
level of diversity in opinion was allowed in the
Op-Ed discussion of the death penalty. While
The New York Times guest contributors seemed
neutral in their discussion of the issue (1.92), the
paper’s columnists were clearly opposed to the
death penalty (1.0). The overall mean for The
New York Times (1.5) clearly indicates wide-scale
diversity of opinion on the death penalty issue.
As an example, Scott Turow (2003) comments:
‘‘At the end of the day, perhaps the best
argument against capital punishment may be
that it is an issue beyond the limited capacity of
government to get things right.’’
Similar findings are seen in the Washington
Post . Here, guest contributors were highly
critical of the death penalty (1.10) while paper
columnists were more neutral (1.75). The overall
mean score (1.22) suggests a wide-scale diver-
sity of opinions on the death penalty issue. For
example, E. J. Dionne Jr. (2002) states: ‘‘We may
not be about to abolish it, but thanks to the
courage of Illinois’ Republican governor, George
Ryan, the burden in the death penalty debate is
shifting.’’
The results indicate that while the Washington
Post was more critical to the liberal programs of
affirmative action and gay marriages than The
New York Times , it was also more critical of the
traditionally conservative issue of the death
penalty than the Times.
Study results provide further indications of an
editorial strategy of content diversity in the
discussion of the three issues. The social impact
variable of the content analysis reveals the Op-
Eds’ focus on the overall impact of these three
issues in American society. Results indicate that
most Op-Ed articles dealt with the social impact
of the three issues (38 percent). Yet, discussion of
the issue impact proved diverse as moral impact
(19 percent), legal impact (17 percent), impact on
individuals (15 percent) and political impact
(11 percent) ranked closely behind.
ANITA G. DAY AND GUY GOLAN
Op-Ed Focus on the Impact of Issues
Mixed results concerning content diversity was
found in the criticism raised by Op-Ed writers of
individuals and of organizations. Opinion wri-
ters in both newspapers focused the majority of
their criticism on individual politicians (19 per-
cent, 14 percent), judges (4 percent, 2.5 percent)
and various individuals in general (1.5 percent,
6 percent). It ought to be noted that most criti-
cism was directed to President George W. Bush.
A larger scale of content diversity was found in
writers’ criticism of organizations with the ma-
jority of it placed on society as a whole (27 percent,
28 percent) and legal bodies/organizations
(21 percent, 28 percent) followed by criticism of
academic organizations (6 percent, 6 percent) and
advocacy groups (6 percent, 4 percent).
Summary and Discussion of Content and
Source Diversity Strategies
The present study aimed to analyze the diver-
sity of sources and issue stands on gay mar-
riages, affirmative action and the death penalty
in Op-Ed articles published in The New York
Times and the Washington Post . Designed as a
journalistic forum for the articulation of compet-
ing ideas on salient issues, the Op-Ed section
ought to pursue a strategy of diversity in order
to fulfill its stated purpose. A content analysis of
these two papers produced mixed findings
concerning gatekeepers’ strategy of source and
content diversity.
A large degree of source diversity was identi-
fied in The New York Times as guest columnists
accounted for 65 percent of overall Op-Ed
articles regarding the three issues. The news-
paper provided a seemingly balanced use of
sources to examine the issues of gay marriages
and the death penalty as its columnists ac-
counted for over 40 percent of the articles. This
balance was completely undermined in the
discussion of affirmative action where 79 per-
cent of Op-Ed articles were written by guest
contributors. It could be argued that by turning
the discussion of the issue over to guest writers
and away from its own columnists, the news-
paper was true to its original proposition of
affording a ‘‘greater opportunity for explanation
SOURCE AND CONTENT DIVERSITY IN OP-ED PAGES
of issues and presentation of new insights and
new ideas by writers and thinkers who have no
institutional connection’’ (The New York Times ,
1970, p. 42). Based on the results of the content
analysis, it could be argued that The New York
Times followed an editorial strategy of source
diversity in its discussion of the three issues.
The results of the study also suggest that
unlike The New York Times , the Washington Post
did not allow for source diversity in its Op-Ed
discussion of the three issues. While guest
contributors (59 percent) outnumbered colum-
nists (41 percent) on the issue of gay marriages,
the discussion of the other two issues was less
balanced. The study results show that over
77 percent of Op-Ed articles on affirmative
action and 82 percent of articles on the death
penalty were written by newspaper columnists.
As Washington Post columnists are hired and
paid by the newspaper, it cannot be argued that
the paper’s Op-Ed section provides discussion
that is free of ‘‘institutional connection’’. It could
be argued that by limiting the Op-Ed discussion
of the controversial issues to its paid columnists,
the editors of the Washington Post ’s Op-Ed
section did not allow for sufficient source
diversity.
Beyond the selection of sources, the current
study was also interested in examining diversity
in issue stands by Op-Ed writers. Aimed to
provide a stage for the articulation of competing
issue stands, the Op-Ed section ought to have
provided a voice to both liberals and conserva-
tives on the three highly polarized social issues.
Like source diversity, the current analysis also
provides mixed results concerning the diversity
of issue stands in both newspapers.
Our measurement of the affective coverage of
gay marriages in The New York Times indicates
that overall, coverage in the paper’s Op-Ed
articles was highly supportive (positive) of gay
marriages. The low differential of 0.4 suggests
that there was no real difference in worldview
between columnists and guest contributors on
the gay marriage issue.
A lack of diversity in issue stands in the Times
was also found concerning affirmative action.
Again, the majority of articles were generally
liberal and supportive of affirmative action. The
differential of 0.19 suggests that there was
69
relatively no difference in issue stand between
columnists and guests, suggesting that editors
selected mostly those articles that reinforced
their own worldview on the issue.
Contradicting the lack of diversity in issue
stand for gay marriages and affirmative action,
the Times allowed for greater diversity in issue
stand in its discussion of the death penalty.
While the newspaper’s columnists were over-
whelmingly opposed to the death penalty, its
guest contributors appeared largely neutral.
This diversity in issue stands is reflected by
the 0.91 differential.
The analysis of issue stand diversity in
Washington Post Op-Ed articles provides consis-
tent results to those of The New York Times .
While the Washington Post did not allow for a
diversity of issue stand on gay marriages
(0.41 differential) and the death penalty (0.65
differential), it did however allow for a
greater diversity of issue stand on affirmative
action. While the paper’s columnists were over-
whelmingly opposed to affirmative action,
the editors elected to publish guest Op-Ed
articles that were strongly supportive of the
issue (2.77).
The current study raises concerns over diver-
sity of sources and issue stands in the Op-Ed
pages of two leading national daily newspapers.
The results of the content analysis indicate that
Op-Ed gatekeepers in both The New York Times
and the Washington Post allow limited diversity
in their discussion of three important and highly
controversial social issues. The discussion was
largely limited by the source of writers in each
paper, appearing to mostly to be elites, aca-
demics and pundits.
With the scarcity of relevant research, the
current study aimed to enhance knowledge on
Op-Ed journalism which is an important part of
democratic discourse. Recognizing that reveal-
ing the choices of gatekeepers and the decision-
making process is limited within a strict analysis
of editorial content, an assumption of strategy is
made here based upon the voices represented in
the observed Op-Ed pages. An in-depth analysis
of editor’s policies, available writers and ob-
servations of actual newsroom practices would
perhaps better answer editors’ source and con-
tent strategies in selection of the pieces. Future
70 ANITA G. DAY AND GUY GOLAN

research should continue to investigate editorial Op-Ed editors for an enriched understanding of
strategies of source and content diversity how gatekeepers allow diversity and how this
with a multi-part approach, including perhaps diversity influences readers’ perceptions of is-
interviews with The Times and Washington Post ’s sues and attribute saliency.

References
Ansolabeherre, Stephen, Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, Adam and Valentino, Nicholas (1994) ‘‘Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the
Electorate’’, American Political Science Review 88, pp. 829
38.
Brown, Clyde, Waltzer, Herbert and Waltzer, Miriam B. (2001) ‘‘Daring to Be Heard: advertorials by organized interests on the Op-
Ed pages of The New York Times’’ , Political Communication 18(1), pp. 23
51.
Ciofalo, Andrew and Traverso, Kim (1994) ‘‘Does the Op-Ed Page Have a Chance to Become a Public Forum?’’, Newspaper and
Research Journal 15(4), pp. 51
63.
Cohen, Richard (2002) ‘‘A Negative Impression on Affirmative Action’’, Washington Post , 17 January, p. A23.
Cook, Timothy (1998) Governing with the News: the news media as a political institution , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croteau, David and Hoynes, William (1994) By Invitation Only: how the media limit political debate , Monroe, ME: Common Courage
Press.
Dionne, E. J., Jr (2002) ‘‘Challenging the Death Penalty’’, Washington Post , 16 April, p. A19.
Gilliam, Frank and Iyengar, Shanto (2000) ‘‘Prime Suspects: the influence of local television news on the viewing public’’, American
Journal of Political Science 44(3), pp. 560
73.
Golan, Guy and Wanta, Wayne (2001) ‘‘Second-level Agenda Setting in the New Hampshire Primary: a comparison of coverage in
three newspaper and public perceptions of candidates’’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78(2), pp. 247
59.
Golan, Guy and Wanta, Wayne (2004) ‘‘Guest Columns Add Diversity to NY Times’ Op-Ed Pages’’, Newspaper Research Journal
25(2), pp. 70
82.
Greenberg, Stanley (2004) The Two Americas: our current political deadlock and how to break it , New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Gross, Peter (1996) Mass Media in Revolution and National Development: the Romanian laboratory, Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Hallock, Steve and Rodgers, Ron (2003) ‘‘The Paradox of Editorial Diversity: a content analysis of the Cincinnati Enquirer and
Cincinnati Post’’ , paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Newspaper Division of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, MO, August.
Herbert, Bob (2000) ‘‘In America; the Death Capital’’, The New York Times , 16 October, p. 29.
Herbert, Bob (2001) ‘‘In America; Cruel and Unusual’’, The New York Times , 8 March, p. 23
Herbert, Bob (2002) ‘‘Deciding Who Will Live’’, The New York Times , 18 March, p. 25.
Holsti, Ole (1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities , Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Humphreys, Peter (1990) Media and Media Policy in West Germany: the press and broadcasting since 1945 , New York: St. Martin Press.
Kahn, Kim and Kenney, Patrick (1999) ‘‘Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the relationship
between negativity and participation’’, American Political Science Review 93(4), pp. 877
93.
Kapoor, Suraj and Kang, Jong (1993) ‘‘Political Diversity is Alive Among Publishers and Opinion Page Editors’’, Journalism
Quarterly 70(2), pp. 404
11.
Kasza, Gregory (1993) The State and the Mass Media in Japan, 1918
1945 , Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kiousis, Spiro (2003) ‘‘Job Approval and Favorability: the impact of media attention to the Monica Lewinsky scandal on public
opinion of President Bill Clinton’’, Mass Communication and Society 6, pp. 435
51.
Kristof, Nichols (2003) ‘‘Lovers Under the Skin’’, The New York Times , 3 December, p. 31.
Lewin, Kurt (1947) ‘‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics: concepts, method, and reality in social sciences: social equilibria and social
change’’, Human Relations , June, pp. 5
41.
Loury, Glenn (2003) ‘‘Admissions (and Denials) of Responsibility’’, The New York Times , 29 March, p. 11.
McCombs, Maxwell and Shaw, Donald (1972) ‘‘The Agenda-setting Function of Mass Media’’, Public Opinion Quarterly 36, pp.
176
87.
Page, Benjamin (1996) Who Deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Patterson, Orlando (2003) ‘‘Affirmative Action: the sequel’’, The New York Times , 22 June, p. 11.
Raspberry, William (1999a) ‘‘Black Leaders of the Future’’, Washington Post , 19 February, p. A23.
Raspberry, William (1999b) ‘‘A Subtle Thumb on the Scale’’, Washington Post , 30 August, p. A19.
Raspberry, William (2000a) ‘‘An Opportunity for the Taking’’, Washington Post , 31 July, p. A19
Raspberry, William (2000b) ‘‘No!’’, Washington Post , 29 December, p. A33.
Raspberry, William (2001a) ‘‘The Affirmative Action Flip-flop’’, Washington Post , 30 March, p. A29.
Raspberry, William (2001b) ‘‘Golf Lesson’’, Washington Post , 4 June, p. A19.
Raspberry, William (2002) ‘‘Readers on Reparations’’, Washington Post , 10 June, p. A21.
Raspberry, William (2003a) ‘‘Affirmative Action: goal vs. issue’’, Washington Post , 27 January, p. A19.
Raspberry, William (2003b) ‘‘The Reasonableness Test’’, Washington Post , 17 April, p. A15.
Rauch, Jonathan (1999) ‘‘The Right Approach to Gay Marriage’’, Washington Post , 28 December, p. A23.
Rauch, Jonathan (2000) ‘‘Bush Miscalculates on Gay Republicans’’, The New York Times , 17 April, p. 19.
Raul, Alan (2003) ‘‘Undermining Society’s Morals’’, Washington Post , 28 November, p. A41.
Reese, Stephen (1994) ‘‘The Structure of News Sources on Television: a network analysis of ‘CBS News’, ‘Nightline’, MacNeil/
Leher’, and ‘This Week with David Brinkley’’’, Journal of Communication 44, pp. 84
107.
Rohatyn, Felix (2001) ‘‘America’s Deadly Image’’, Washington Post , 20 February, p. A23.
SOURCE AND CONTENT DIVERSITY IN OP-ED PAGES 71

Rosenfeld, Stephen (2000) ‘‘The Op-Ed Pages as a Step to a Better Democracy’’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 5,
pp. 7
12.
Salisbury, Harrison (1988) A Time of Change: a reporter’s tale of our time , New York: Harper & Row.
Shoemaker, Pamela and Reese, Stephen (1996) Mediating the Message: theories of influences on mass media content , New York:
Longman.
Shoemaker, Pamela, Eichholz, Martin, Kim, Eunyi and Wrigley, Brenda (2001) ‘‘Individual and Routine Forces in Gatekeeping’’,
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78, pp. 233
46.
Simpson, Alan (2003) ‘‘Missing the Point on Gays’’, Washington Post , 5 September, p. A21.
Smith, Gerri and Heath, Robert (1990) ‘‘Moral Appeals in Mobil Oil’s Op-Ed Campaign’’, Public Relations Review 16, pp. 48
53.
Song, Yonghoi (2003) ‘‘Homogeneity and Diversity in Op-Ed Pages: a comparative analysis of Op-Ed pages of the Washington Post
and the Washington Times’’ , paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Newspaper Division of the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, MO, August.
Stonecipher, Harry (1979) Editorial and Persuasive Writing: opinion functions of the news media , New York: Communication Art Books,
Hastings House, pp. 224
7.
The New York Times (1970) Op-Ed page, September, p. 42.
Tomaselli, Keyan (1989) The Press in South Africa , Chicago: Lake View Press.
Tuchman, Gaye (1978) Making News: a study in the construction of reality, New York: Free Press.
Turow, Scott (2003) ‘‘Clemency Without Clarity’’, The New York Times , 17 January, p. 27.
Valentino, Nicholas, Hutchings, Vincent and White, Ismail (2002) ‘‘Cues that Matter: how political ads prime racial attitudes
during campaigns’’, American Political Science Review 96(1), pp. 75
90.
Wattenberg, Martin and Brians, Craig (1999) ‘‘Negative Campaign Advertiser: demobilizer or mobilizer?’’, American Political
Science Review 93(4), pp. 891
9.
White, David (1950) ‘‘The ‘Gate Keeper’: a case study in the selection of news’’, Journalism Quarterly 27, pp. 383
90.
Will, George (2001) ‘‘Affirmative Action Out of Control’’, Washington Post , 1 March, p. A19.
Will, George (2003) ‘‘Culture and What Courts Can’t Do’’, Washington Post , 30 November, p. B07.