We don't need it.

Every reader who complains that this morning's lefty manifesto about global warming belonged on the editorial page has grasped the obvious: An editorial page--the one labeled Commentary, Viewpoints, Opinion, or something similar--is where a newspaper publishes its commentary, viewpoints, and opinions--or something similar.

So, do readers need constant reminders about who is instructing them in the issues of the moment? Do editorial writers long to wear black robes and carry gavels? Must editorials read as if written by the fifth little piggie: "We, we, we, we, we--all the way home"?

Not really.

Actually, an excellent libel lawyer tells me it's sometimes a good idea to insert "in our opinion" every so often when making harsh characterizations about specific individuals, just to be dear that we're entitled to the laws protection of fair comment.

That practicality aside, the editorial "we" is dated and self-centered. It pushes the message out of the spotlight in favor of the messenger.

If the governor's tax proposal would crush small businesses, say so. Noting that "we" believe it doesn't make an editorial more forceful, just wordier.

When "we" is used to join writer and reader around shared value--we Americans, we community members--that's one thing. But when it's used to set the exalted editorial board apart from the readers--"We are disappointed"; "As we have said before ..."--it's usually pompous. It implies grander knowledge and authority, and even if that's true, declaring it doesn't exactly warm the audience to one's persuasive powers.

William Strunk Jr.'s admonition applies. "Omit needless words."

We--the writers and editors who study issues and develop thoughtful opinions--play an important role. As producers of opinion for our newspapers, we are needed. As a personal presence in the text, "we" is not.

Doug Floyd is editorial page editor of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington. E-mail [e-mail]