Get rid of editorials

Today, the New York Times made this argument more cogently than I could every imagine. In typical Times seriousness, they published an editorial arguing that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet:

Our own preference is to take a cleaner way out by dropping Pluto from the planetary ranks. Scientists may well discover many more ice balls bigger than Pluto, and it's a safe bet that few in our culture want to memorize the names of 20 or more planets. Far better to downgrade Pluto to the status of an icy sphere that was once mistakenly deemed a planet because we had not yet discovered its compatriots on the dark fringes of the solar system.

Two questions: could anybody possibly care less whether or not Pluto is a planet or not? And if it did matter, would anybody care what the New York Times thought about the issue? Obviously, the editorial board thinks this is a matter of pressing national importance, because people are becoming desensitized, and will no longer give appropriate weight to the importance of the term "planet." The editorial is titled "Too Many Planets Numb the Mind," as if the great Neptune is somehow demeaned by the inclusion of its little icy neighbor in the exclusive planetary club.

An even more annoying constant of editorials in every paper is the assumption that their opinions carry weight simply because they speak for the newspaper. Whereas op/ed columnists must convince their readers through solid arguments, the idea of the editorial is simply to inform readers what they ought to think, because the newspaper is always right. It's maddening that this editorial says "our preference" as if anybody cares about the issue, let alone what the New York Times thinks about it. Also in the vein of disturbing self importance is the following passage:

So now Dr. Brown proposes that scientists give up the battle and accept a cultural definition of what a planet is. It's either the nine planets we learned about in grade school, or those nine plus any new-found object orbiting the Sun that turns out to be bigger than Pluto. He opts for the latter approach on the theory that most people, deep down, accept that definition. This definition would also, of course, qualify Dr. Brown for the historical footnotes as the discoverer of a new planet.

OH MY GOODNESS! Selfish scientist wants fame and fortune; twists definition of planet to make self discoverer. Alert the media! Hang on, the New York Times is the media. Alert the newsroom! Seriously, this is ridiculous. This space would certainly be better filled by adding more columns. There just aren't enough serious issues for a paper to trot out 2000 words of their staff opinions on them every day. And so we end up reading about planets.

Also, in trying to represent the venerable tradition of a newspaper, editorials are always so muted down both in content and in style they are hardly worth reading. A columnist brings personality and interesting viewpoints to the table, while the staff editorials are almost always uninspiring in both categories. It's such a waste of space that two whole columns are devoted to such droll and humorless drivel. Nobody cares about half the issues in the editorials, and nobody's going to be persuaded just because the New York Times or any other newspaper says so. Just abolish the editorials.