Balance of opinions
Let's sympathize with editor Parks' Sunday statement that adjusting to the era of Trump "means we are searching for pro-Trump columns. ... And we are on the lookout for new conservative voices that have emerged since Trump's election."
Trump's war against the media has already had some of the desired effect.
A Gallup poll last September showed only 14 percent of Republicans trust traditional media, compared with 32 percent the year before. (If they take the paper, Mr. Parks, it's for reduced-price packages of wieners.)
As Wall Street Journal "conservative" columnist Brett Stephens said in February, "Ideologically, the president is trying to depose so-called mainstream media in favor of the media he likes. ... Another way of making this point is to say that he's trying to substitute news for propaganda, information for boosterism. ... His objection is to objectivity itself. He's perfectly happy for the media to be disgusting and corrupt -- so long as it's on his side."
The day before the election, Business Insider tallied 240 newspaper editorial boards supporting Clinton, 19 for Trump and 63 that refused to make an endorsement.
These boards are comprised of professionals who weigh policy, character and the ability to recognize truth. Adjusting to Trump's era should never mean normalizing a president with little regard for facts.
Give readers the most cogently argued opinions, Mr. Parks.
Where Republicans find information they can trust is a mystery, so true balance won't be found in equal column inches on the editorial page.