There are a number of interesting group blogs on the web, including National Review's "The Corner". Although the contributors are in general agreement on key issues, there are vigorous debates on a regular basis, illuminating the diversity of opinion within the broader conservative movement on the issues of the day. Some differences are philosophical, some tactical.

Rod Dreher, a former NR writer now with the Dallas Morning News, calls our attention to the DMN's new editorial board blog:

Over on our blog, the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News is duking it out on the Israeli-Palestinian question.... No matter which side you're on, it's useful for readers to see the kind of thinking, and the kind of people doing the thinking, that goes into the creation of the editorial positions of a major American daily newspaper. This kind of transparency serves the reader, who can see the ed board's biases plainly. This might sound self-serving, but I bet newspaper readers elsewhere in the country would benefit if their daily's editorial board did the same thing. Check us out and see what you think -- and please write to let me know.

I think Tulsa would be well-served if the Whirled had a similar feature, although I don't think we'd see much "duking it out", because the Whirled editorial board isn't diverse. They all march together, unnaturally in lock-step. I have yet to read a signed column where one editorial board member challenges the the opinions of another member, either directly by name or even indirectly. As individual human beings they must have disagreements, but these are never brought to light, if in fact they ever disagree. But the Whirled's policy seems in line with their disdain for dissent, and their constant assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bad person.