PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) scores again this week with a renewed commitment to civil discourse in this country, or at least among WSJ readers, including me.

The news came yesterday in a memo from Wall Street Journal executive editor Matt Murray under the headline “elevating our discourse.”

Now, various of my friends who operate from the left of center – and I add that “there is nothing wrong with that “– would say that the Wall Street Journal takes a conservative viewpoint on everything, so bests not to rely on that news source.  I disagree.  The WSJ practices the art of journalism with skill and precision, always denoting the difference between reporting and opinion.

I add that, beyond the WSJ, I also read the Washington Post every day with its left-of-center perspective in an attempt to take more than one side of an issue and decide for myself.  And the Posts also practices solid journalism.

Better the WSJ and the Post than to focus on the pervasive effects of social media these days, which exists, not to provide information and context, but rather to inflame readers.

Here’s the way Matt Murray explained a new WSJ focus:

“Our readers like active engagement with the news. We have heard from you that you strongly desire a place to read a variety of audience perspectives, that you want posts that are thoughtful and, also, that you would like an environment in which you feel comfortable to share your own insights.

“In interviews and surveys of our membership and the broader public, people say they would like to contribute to audience conversations on our web site but that they have, over time, become turned off by the growing toxicity that is rampant all over the Internet.

“We want our web-site to lead the way in pushing for elevated discourse. This week, we are introducing initial steps that will pave the way for audience conversations that more of you may be interested in reading and perhaps in contributing to. We will have more steps and new features in coming months. We welcome your feedback and you can write me at the below email address.

“News thrives when it lives amid a conversation between journalists and the public, and amid conversations among readers themselves.”

Notice a key phrase from Murray: “News thrives where it lives amid a conversation between journalists and the public.”

Kudos to him for, not just a great turn of phrase, but a solid commitment, as well.  I wish the commitment also would extend to citizens and those who represent them, but that appears to be far from reality and both sides choose to disagree disagreeably.

Here are five key tenets of the WSJ commitment:

1. To keep discussions free of objectionable content streaming in from outside the WSJ community, the audience conversation feature will now be an exclusive benefit for our members.
2. To give both our members and WSJ editors the ability to focus on the day’s top stories, we will be limiting the number of open articles and closing discussions after 48 hours. You will be able to find articles with open conversations in a featured box on the bottom of all articles on our site.
3. The SJ has improved what it calls its “moderation process” to better enforce existing policies. It also has hired additional journalists to engage with the “Audience Conversation” to enhance the free expression of ideas and foster civility in our community.
4. To facilitate thoughtful and meaningful discourse, a WSJ reporter will initiate the discussion with a question. This will help keep comments on point and give members the ability to interact with our journalists.
5. The WSJ says it is committed to transparency and has created a system to notify members immediately when comments are approved or rejected.

This is a great addition to a meaningful commitment: Improving civil discourse in this country. Does it solve a problem all on its own? Of course not.

But it hews toward what should be a commitment in this country: Enabling citizens to engage with the media to increase understanding on both sides.

Too often, various sides of  contentious issues in this country spend time, figuratively, yelling on street corners to avow that they and only they have the right answers to every  question. Citizens who engage in this kind of behavior probably follow the instincts of those who represent us – including President Donald Trump and Members of Congress.

They disagree on many issues and spend time ridiculing the other side rather than seeking middle ground, which is where the best solutions lie any.

Again, does the WSJ initiative create, on its own, civil discourse.?  No, but it clearly is a step in the right direction.