Experience not the only route to journalistic competence: we can write convincingly without experience, but it takes work.

Anyone notice what's missing from Trevor Lautens' nostalgic and contemplative walk down the armed forces memory lane?

The female voice.

As the editorializing profession welcomes more women into the fold, it raises the question of "our" ability to write with credibility and authority on such issues as the realities of war. Gracious, in a world rife with military and sports metaphors, how's a girl supposed to communicate?

It isn't just the women in today's newsrooms who lack DD214s, however. The demarcation line is one of generation rather than gender.

Scan your newsroom. How many of the men served time in a uniform? Granted, there is a trueness of voice in those who have experienced first-hand the hours of relentless boredom punctuated by moments of abject terror that is combat, or law enforcement, lot that matter. That does not mean one cannot write persuasively about the soldier's or the police officer's experience without brass on the collar or steel on the hip.

Can a white write with conviction about the African American's struggle for equality? Can a Christian speak with power about a Muslim's right to practice Islam? Can a man write convincingly about childbirth?

Absolutely, but it takes work. It takes connecting on a personal level with people who have been there, done that, worn out the t-shirt. That kind of research can't be done from in front of a computer terminal, but it can happen without enlisting in the army of Uncle Sam or Allah, or growing ovaries.

But then, everything we produce as editorial writers should take hard work--as much research, if not more, than what it takes for reporters to produce the stories that serve as the seeds of editorials. Opinion writers are sponges: We soak up information, then add context, perspective, and analysis before squeezing out the river of words that nurture kernels of ideas into fully formed debates.

It is said that nothing can replace actual experience. If that is so, then it points to the need for newsrooms--and editorial boards--to be diversified in more ways than gender and race. Having people with differing political views, educational backgrounds, work experiences, ages, even hobbies can mean the difference in whether an opinion piece speaks with authority or merely drifts off into the ether.

Take the example of the major metropolitan newspaper that strongly editorialized on the need for the federal "assault-style weapons" ban to be extended beyond its September 2004 sunset provision. Without question, this is a legitimate issue on which U.S. newspapers should be commenting.

Big problem with the editorial, however. It started with an anecdotal lead about how impressed Adolf Hitler was when his military geniuses developed the first assault rifle, or "Sterm Kever." Unfortunately for the paper, the German term for "assault rifle" is Sturmgewehr, and Hitler had little use for it when it was first demonstrated early in the war. He devoted no funds to its development, which was carried out by workers who perfected the weapon on their own time.

Had Hitler embraced the "assault rifle" the first time he saw it in action, the war could have been a very different experience for thousands of Allied soldiers.

Would someone with military experience have known this? How about someone who speaks German? How about a gun collector?

I may not be able to convince the other members of the Star-Telegram's editorial board that letting the "assault-style weapons" ban expire is a good idea but I can make sure we don't step on our tongues trying to make the point that it's a bad one.

J.R. Labbe is the senior editorial writer at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in Texas. E-mail [e-mail]