Journal turns in editorial after the bell

I will leave it to others to determine what is the actual editorial policy of the Albuquerque Journal is or should be.

Allan Weintraut's model, link:

An editorial is an article that presents the newspaper's opinion on an issue. It reflects the majority vote of the editorial board, the governing body of the newspaper made up of editors and business managers. It is usually unsigned. Much in the same manner of a lawyer, editorial writers build on an argument and try to persuade readers to think the same way they do. Editorials are meant to influence public opinion, promote critical thinking, and sometimes cause people to take action on an issue. In essence, an editorial is an opinionated news story.

I call your attention to;

Editorials are meant to influence public opinion,
promote critical thinking, and sometimes
cause people to take action on an issue.

If the Journal editors see it differently, they should say so, prominently.

They wrote an editorial, link, and then published at least one day too late to influence public opinion, promote critical thinking, and maybe, just maybe, cause people to take action.

Why?  Why did they step up a day too late for the editorial to have any real impact?

In publishing the editorial a day late, they have covered their collective ass.  They didn't do any real damage to Brooks' prospects and they didn't call attention to the issue in time for anyone to react to it.  The leadership of the APS will not feel the brunt of the negative impact the editorial will create; it will happen too late.

Yet, if someone criticizes them over their failure to step up and tell the truth about the APS, they can, in their defense, point to the editorial as evidence that they did actually pick a side on the issue.  The conversation won't last long enough for anyone to point out how utterly feckless the editorial was, in light of its timing.

People, had they known that even the Journal editors are loosing faith in Winston Brooks ability to lead the APS, might have shown up at the school board meeting last night, and used the public forum to speak freely and petition their government on the issue of Winston Brooks' superintendency.

They might have, had they known the truth about APS and Winston Brooks.

The Journal has made a deliberate decision to not investigate and report upon credible evidence of an ethics and accountability scandal in Brooks' administration.

The Journal has made a deliberate decision to not investigate and report upon the abdication of every single one of the senior-most role models of student standards of conduct.

The Journal has made a deliberate decision to not investigate and report upon the findings of numerous investigations of public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS.

The Journal knows that Brooks (in a "buck stops here" kind of a way) is hiding the findings of investigations into felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of their publicly funded private police force.  The Journal knows about the cover up of the cover up.

The Journal is complicit in the cover up of the cover up.

In the Journal's defense,
they did once write this editorial criticizing his behavior.