Post-election 2000: op-ed perspective.

It was exciting, it was exhausting, it was hell

It was Saturday like many post-election Saturdays. Two timely op-eds were amazingly in the bank, even though less than 24 hours earlier, the Florida Supreme Court had ruled 4-3 that a manual recount be done of the state's "undervote" for president. Fortunately, two quick Metro Detroit law professors turned around opposing commentaries for me. I was starting to shoot the page when the phone rang.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the Florida court's decision," one of the law professors told me with a gravity befitting a death penalty pardon. I looked around our empty offices, but there was no one to whom I could yell "Stop the presses." My family would again have to wait a little longer as the professors adjusted their analyses.

It was exciting. It was exhausting.

"It was hell," says Naomi Kaufman Price, assistant commentary editor of The Oregonian in Portland.

It was Election 2000.

The most important lesson for op-ed editors from the post-election campaign is how valuable it is to cultivate relationships. Although most commentary editors had plenty of syndicated and freelance opinion to choose from, sometimes they didn't provide much insight.

"It's amazing how quickly official party spin from the evening shout shows can be picked up and reused by columnists and letter writers," says Bob Davis, op-ed and Sunday editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "Eventually, my reaction was: 'Yawn -- heard that before, hot shot. Try for something original.'"

The landscape changed so fast (butterfly ballots, chads, "the Safe Harbor provision," voter intent, the Equal Protection Provision, "Will Gore concede or withdraw?") that you needed local and national experts with facile minds, quick fingers, and e-mail accounts.

More times than not they delivered. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch was fortunate to have the St Louis County elections supervisor, a Republican who went to Florida to help Bush, do a couple of pieces. Newsday had a local columnist several times do reporting directly from Florida in addition to its local experts. In Detroit, a former Michigan deputy secretary of state and a couple of editorial writers drew intriguing lessons by comparing the Florida experience to our state's election laws.

But op-ed editors did have a couple of dog days. The worst was The Day After -- November 9. I returned after an all-nighter to an empty wire cupboard. Out in Portland, The Oregonian's Kaufman Price and her supervisor, Doug Bates, found a similar void. They hit the phones, calling the syndicates and Florida newspapers. Nothing.

"It was really disappointing," Kaufman Price says.

The presidential deadlock was so unexpected that the entire opinion community seemed to be reeling. Fortunately, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post Writers Group, a former political reporter, hit the ground running and produced a respectable political overview. I was lucky enough to package it with a piece defending the Electoral College by our deputy editorial page editor. Others also did early Electoral College critiques.

After a day or two, though, the opinion onslaught arrived. The inundation was so huge at The Miami Herald that its op-ed staff didn't need to solicit commentaries, says Kathleen Krog, who oversees the Sunday op-ed pages. It became a welcome but daunting headache of sifting copy.

Several op-ed trends emerged from my informal survey of a few newspapers:

* Let the election dominate the page. Although there was occasional weariness, the post-election was so unusual and historic that many pages devoted considerable space to it.

Few other issues could compete with it, except occasionally the violence in the Middle East, says Noel Rubinton, Newday's op-ed page editor. "We didn't worry about overdoing it," he says.

* Strike a balance. The election was so evenly divided and emotionally charged that op-ed pages sought equilibrium. Pro/cons were done almost everywhere I inquired: Denver Rocky Mountain News, The Miami Herald, The Oregonian, the News. Several newspapers did round-ups of excerpted syndicated columnists or newspaper editorials.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch went further. According to Donna Korando, because its editorial page is decidedly liberal (and thus pro-Al Gore), she tried to balance that with conservative commentary on her page.

* Welcome variety. Of course, editors did try to guard against election fatigue. Offbeat local commentary was more appreciated than ever.

* Let the readers speak. Many editorial boards reported high -- if not record -- numbers of letters. Despite occasional complaints, letter writers couldn't seem to get enough of the election. And a great many were first-time correspondents. Op-ed pages were opened to their comments, which sometimes could be more interesting than canned syndicate material. The Miami Herald narrowed its editorial margins so more letters were published.

* Welcome (but beware of) out-of-state letter writers. The impact of e-mail became clear with the influx of out-of-state letters -- in my case, particularly from Florida. They seemed to think their letters would be more readily published as a true voice of the people. The News published a couple but gave preference to Michigan readers. But The Miami Herald, following a policy set from the Elian Gonzalez case and others, devoted about one-third of its letters to non-Floridians. The Sunshine State was in the spotlight on an issue of national importance, so it reflected those view.

The experience resulted in a few verdicts on the commentary industry. The liberal and conservative think tanks were worthless, says Joe Oglesby, a Herald associate editor who runs the day-to-day op-ed page. The best, less-partisan sources of information and insight came from freelancers and academics. Some syndicated columnists were good -- Dionne, George Will, Tony Snow -- but the rest of the armchair quarterbacks often weren't compelling.

When they weren't, op-ed editors discovered some new writers and reacquainted themselves with some old, trusted friends. The experience was a reminder that sometimes good pieces land in your office, but more often you find them by reaching out and networking outside the office. You never know when you will need them.

Richard Burr is associate editor/features of The Detroit News editorial page, where he has edited the op-ed page for more than 13 years.