In the Nick(ens) of Tim

The two men reclined in a comfortable slump between a row of desks, one against the counter top and the other on a stool.

One in a bow tie and the other in a necktie.

Formal, yet relaxed.

They exchanged opinions and ideas as if they were old friends making up for lost time, with playful quips and remarks thrown in for good measure.
It was as if they were alone together, sharing a cup of coffee or an impromptu meal.

But this was a classroom, and in it, students.

And despite the informal nature of these friendly conversations, there was much to be learned there that only time and experience could teach.

Tim Nickens is the editor for the St. Pete Times editorial section and he is certainly not lacking for such experience. Since 1983, Nickens has been a field reporter, front-line editor of metro and politics pages and now occupies the top chair for the Times' editorial board.

While he was prompted to explain the technical aspects of good editorials, Nickens' best advice resulted from open discussions with the other students.

Though Nickens agreed that the purpose of an editorial should be to provoke thought and incite action, he noted that they should aim to influence the opinions and actions of legislators as well as constituents, so that real change may result from the effort.

Unlike articles, where your intended audience is almost too broad as you attempt to get every one's attention, in editorials, Nickens revealed, "sometimes you're really aiming at one person in an effort to convince them that something is the right thing to do."

This idea blew my mind at first; that an organization would publish a piece intended for an audience of one. However, I quickly understood that if the action proposed by the editorial meant enough to the organization that was publishing it, I could see the logic behind this 'direct' address.

Our discussions also made light of certain news judgment values in our local newspapers that I had not noticed before. I believe it was Thomas who inquired as to why there is such a scarcity of international stories, unless they can be brought to a local level or are of the utmost importance to cover.

Nickens explained that, in the Times' case, they admit that they are not the experts needed to adequately cover such international topics.

More importantly, he added that the Times has the least impact on issues abroad and would rather focus on local and state matters where it can more significantly influence the results.

Gil made a nice point here about striving for balance, saying that too much of a local view makes news parochial and ultimately underestimates your reader's interests.

This has given me a new found preoccupation with asking myself what each of the news entities I read on a daily basis are really expecting of me as a citizen based on what stories they are willing to share...

In the case of some local papers, I'm rather offended to say the least.

But moving on, another of Nickens' ideas that struck home with me was that excellent editorials can be written on both sides of any issue as long as you strive to leave no doubt in the reader's mind as to your opinion and why it is your opinion.

This got me thinking about the relationship between writing your claims and backing them up factually and the daily amount of times I verbally defend something I believe in or something I would like to do.

When arguing any side to any case, I always ask myself what I would argue if I was on the other side of the issue and then focus on breaking those arguments down to strengthen my point.

This realization, that I already possess the critical thinking skills necessary to successfully argue a point, is very liberating, as I now find the prospect of shifting such ideas to paper much less daunting.