The latter is always finding a balance of comfort to where the reader is surprised, but the spirit is never bothered. It rumbles, but it is never annoyed. The generalists tells you electric cars are on the way. The former tells you have been duped by companies who have tested and created proven electric machines for over six decades.

My point is, from the perspective of the editor, I think that in this day and age, he HAS to have a megaphone. He doesn’t need be behind it and in front of a camera, or his zeal doesn’t have to be highlighted in scholastic or newspaper quotes. But the ideology of a publication, in this day and age, does surround the mind of the editor.

Maybe you can facilitate infinite content of the world by compromise and candid schema, but how is this possible when the world is moving faster and more absurd than ever in the history of man? How can one be honest and humble about a process that doesn’t even exist? The PROSPECT that corporations, or anyone for that matter, have less of a leash on the process doesn’t preclude that anyone really understands it, or that it will remain static for the process to be analyzed and exploited.

The “process” can be whatever the editor of his content wants it to be. And impartiality can never come from the investigative journalist, because we as readers are partial to our own fallacy. Racism is the truth, but your paper is too leftist. Articles about Iphones are the future, because helping you use a gadget will never bother your soul. And because it ignores the fact that the economy is slowly destroying your lively-hood.

As an editor, whether he possesses ownership or not, must carry his ideology with his own character, and make sure his mark is well-known once words are written in his paper’s name. He must only use a megaphone, but he must carry a sledgehammer to break up any chaos that derives from his publication.

No one could say whether the editor will use the power for subjective reasons. But, in the context that there isn’t true impartiality at the end of the road, for publications, journalists, or editors, I don’t think one should be humble and patient. Not amidst the monotony of the generalist, the rebellion of the investigator, the falling of a revenue stream amongst a shattering media and wayward economy, and murmurs that the news industry is falling apart.

The editor not only has a role. He has the position equivalent to Michael Jordan. He is to take over the game by any means necessary, for it all can fall apart if he humbly acknowledges a deadly and enigmatic process ( for publishing.)

I think what he said and what I am saying are the same thing, but the importance of an editor is beyond any comprehension in this day and age.

Editors are the kings.