Some of my earliest and most cherished memories of my father were of Sunday mornings, when we would sit at the kitchen table together and read the Sunday newspaper. The editorial page in particular would spark discussions between us and would always give me something to ponder for the rest of the day, whether it was a new idea, new information or just something I had not considered before. I realized the best way to challenge our own beliefs and learn something new about the world was through reading opinion pieces and seeing the world through the eyes of someone with a different view than our own.

So of course I was taken aback by a recent Pew Research study that revealed the growing number of professional news publications that are cutting back on the amount of newsprint they devote to editorial pieces.

Since 2006, membership in the Association of Opinion Journalism (AOJ) has decreased by 55 percent, a telling sign that newspapers are slowly eliminating their opinion staffs, according to Pew. Many professional publications, such as The Seattle Times, The Kansas City Star and the Sun Sentinel have eliminated, attempted to eliminate or reduced the size of their opinion pages. This cannot go on.

Intelligent discussion is an extremely important part of our democracy. What is even more important is that we have as many professional mediums as we can where these discussions and debates can take place. It is understood that opinion can never die in today’s world; our government does not censor us and any person with a computer has the means to incite discussions around the globe. But whether or not these discussions are intelligent, helpful or contain reliable information is uncertain, depending on the particular instance. It is even more frightening to consider that there is no one to keep these people in check. They are held accountable only to themselves, or their god. I would hate to think about what would happen if the Internet became the only source of intelligent debate in our society.

However, columnists in professional publications are held accountable by their editors as well as their readers. As a new journalist, I know that it is nearly impossible to get away with publishing blatant lies or complete nonsense. While you may disagree with an argument you read in print, you can trust that at least the argument has a factual basis that may not be contained in comment sections on the Web.

Not only are professional publications more reliable than the average Internet surfer, but also, they can offer a dialogue between the columnist and readers in letters to the editor that is missing in other common forms of media, such as television news. I can recall reading letters from readers in print media that were as poignant and intelligent as the columns themselves. Think of the letters to the editor page as comment sections, but without all of the absurd entries by unintelligent Internet users. But if these editorial pages are eliminated, reader responses will be lost as well, and the discussion will be gone.

Many young people today may not take issue with this downsizing of opinion in print media, but this is an issue for every citizen of the community. I know that even students with little or no interest in politics can find themselves arguing passionately for something they hold a strong belief in. Imagine a world where we have fewer options for raising awareness for these important issues. We cannot distance ourselves from these debates. We must continue to recognize the importance of our ideas and fight for their space in the public domain.

The views in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of the HiLite staff. Reach Grant Smith at [email protected].