Prevent endorsement burnout by planning.

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES NOW dominate the headlines, but for editorial writers, the more daunting challenges in this election year are the candidates for statewide and local positions.

We risk burnout, and if we burn out, imagine what we are likely to convey to our readers. The strategy for getting through without losing your cool: Plan, plan and plan some more.

In this issue's symposium on elections and endorsements, seasoned editorial page editors and writers share ideas for examining and managing the process.

For more help, check out election resource links on the NCEW Website at www.NCEW.org. Or if you're looking for an outline of questions to ask, survey the comprehensive candidates' questionnaires put together by Project Smart at www.vote-smart.org.

Consider, too, an idea I adapted several years ago when I was working for The Ann Arbor News. I liked the concept of recapping endorsements but found summary editorials incomplete. So I began using the full op-ed page on the Sunday before an election to summarize endorsements, using a couple of key sentences, photos, and illustrations of each candidate or issue. The op-ed summary was a hit, in part because readers often miss several of the endorsement editorials.

The millennium

As 1999 closed, the NCEW listserv was alive with debate over when the millennium really started. No consensus was achieved, but it caused us to think, which is what editorial writing is all about. In a package on the millennium, James M. Abraham takes our preoccupation with time to task. Excerpts follow from several editorials on the millennium. There's also a digested version of the listserv debate.

One of the best millennium editorial ideas came from the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, which examined the meaning of the past 1,000 years as it relates to enlightenment, liberty, and hope. The editorials were spread over three days. Those of you waiting until 2001 to mark the millennium have that and other good ideas to steal.

The future

This is my first issue as editor of Masthead, having been handed the pen by Michael Zuzel, who deserves thanks for his innovative and dedicated work over the past two years. Joining me as associate editors are Paul Hyde of the Greenville News in South Carolina, James Abraham of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune in Florida, and Neil Heinen of WISC-TV in Wisconsin. Contact any of us with suggestions. Next issue's symposium will be on editorial coverage of mental illness. (See page 36.) An idea for an additional topic popped into my mind when I was editing yet another column with at least one million semicolons. OK, I exaggerate. But there were 70-word sentences, made possible by exploiting the poor semicolon. So, I've decided to begin a campaign to ban semicolons. Hyde wants to go a step further and "ban triple exclamation points, too!!!" So what about punctuation? Are we as writers chained to fads? Surely there are defenders of semicolons and exclamation points -- maybe even those who support lots of dashes. Other subjects to consider: term limits, setting editorial agendas, page design, and the parameters of freedom for editorial writers. Share your thoughts (as if I had to ask editorialists).

Kay Semion