Tom Frazier: It's time for editors to man up

One of my first columns suggested the Sun-Star should write more local editorials and should also attribute "foreign" editorials to their original sources. A vast majority of its editorials are written by The Sacramento Bee or The Fresno Bee.

I haven't followed up much and have left editorials alone -- examining other areas. But if our editors can claim others' opinions as their own, I think I can criticize them.

A lot of them are pabulum.

Spineless.

Some seem to be trying to satisfy all sides of the issue instead of taking a strong stand that may irritate some of the audience.

Example No. 1 -- the editorial of Dec. 28, "Our View: Health bill, in sum, offers real reform." Its main thrust is summed up, "In the end, the positives in the bill substantially outweigh negatives. Americans should give it a chance."

There are a lot of bad ideas in the bill, but a few more good ideas than bad.

So buy in?

Why? What's the rush?

Instead -- why not fix it? Can't they remove some of the bad ideas?

Seems to me that they started with a blank canvas and could easily do some erasing.

Sorry, editors -- but I don't buy your lame logic.

Example No. 2 -- the editorial of Dec. 31, "Good riddance '09." This timid article tells a tale of how poorly our legislators did in 2009 and years prior. It claims they "must do better."

What do "we" need to do?

"We all must do better. So let's begin 2010 with hope and optimism."

As the saying goes, hope in one hand and -- well, you know. And we all know which hand will fill first.

How about some teeth in the editorial?

How about telling the Sacramento crowd that unless they get their act together, they won't be there much longer?

That's the role of the Fourth Estate, isn't it?

Example No. 3 -- the editorial of Jan. 11, "Spending plan is a nightmare."

This editorial was better than some, but, in my mind, stopped short. Its conclusion -- "The time has come to decide which core functions the state must protect, and which are expendable" -- is definitely true, but ...

Why not provide a few recommendations?

What core functions should stay?

Which are not really core programs?

Example No. 4 -- the editorial of Jan. 8, "Campaign giving needs to be open." Our editors are on the right track on this one.

Their final recommendation?

"At minimum, the public should have a right to know who is bankrolling a campaign before they go in the ballot booth. Any candidate who violates disclosure requirements should face stiff penalties -- not just the forfeiture of the funds collected and fines paid for by his or her campaign. These penalties should include personal liability for violations."

Let's start with our local ballots -- and the Sun-Star. Tell us who is bankrolling our candidates -- and who erred in disclosing their contributors.

There's at least one reporter I think would love this "beat."

Those few are my nominations for the Sun-Star's recent "milquetoast editorials." But there's another editorial that hasn't been written -- at least that I can find.

"Our View: The real impact of illegal immigrants."

I personally think that subject would have a significant impact on Examples 1, 2 and 3.

C'mon editors -- it's time to man up and git 'er done.

Tom Frazier writes Sun Dog and can be reached at sundog@promessage.com.