Posted on 11/10/2002 2:54:48 PM PST by RAT Patrol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Sun, Nov. 10, 2002
How endorsement process works
By MIRIAM PEPPER
Columnist
I'm in the woodshed today at the suggestion of several readers. It seems they're annoyed about the candidates the editorial board endorsed in last week's election. They also suggested I stay here until I rot.
I must say, some readers' assessments of our choices were creatively descriptive, ranging from "stupid" to "irresponsible" to "biased" to words unprintable for a family newspaper.
A reply is in order.
The editorial board is comprised of 10 long-tenured, not-infallible journalists. Each has at least 25 years in journalism. We live on both sides of the state line, adhere to no particular political party, and invest many hours developing endorsements for candidates and ballot issues.
Do we all agree on every candidate? No.
Does the entire 1,600-person newspaper staff agree with the editorial board? Never.
Do the endorsements affect news coverage? No. The editorial board and newsroom work independently, so opinions do not influence the news reporting.
Are we biased? You bet. An editorial page's job is to assemble persuasive arguments on the issues of the day and promote debate.
For elections, we mail long questionnaires to the candidates. For ballot issues, we collect arguments from both sides.
Then we review the answers supplied, investigate voting records and resumes, interview candidates by phone or in person, talk to people knowledgeable about the races, check previously published news articles for background, and rely (as readers do) on news reporters to cover current campaign issues and behavior.
Finally, we vote on who and what to endorse, and the majority rules. The exception is that if the publisher chooses, he may override the board. In this election, he did not override.
Editorial endorsements have a long tradition, although at every election at least some readers demand to know why the opinion page dares to inflict its views on the readership. Does the paper think readers are too dumb to choose on their own? Far from it. Moreover -- and although it's hard for critics to believe -- some readers want endorsements and complain when we don't make one.
The Star's mission statement says, in part, that we must present opinion of consequence for our readers. Ducking out on Election Day would betray our mission.
We endorse candidates because most readers have neither the time nor the access to candidates that we do. What's more, we expect disagreements and welcome dissent. Every day, our letters space is larger than the editorial column.
We don't favor a certain party; we favor individuals. We do not endorse an equal number in each party for balance. We do not endorse based on who or what is likely to win. Many lose. In this election, 55 endorsements won (not counting judges); 30 lost.
We do not expect everyone to agree with all endorsements. In fact, some readers relish our endorsements just so they can vote the opposite.
For my part, I'm adopting several reader suggestions.
Several readers complained we "hid" party affiliations on the summary listing of all endorsements that appeared last Sunday and again on Election Day. (The full editorials that preceded the summary all included parties, so we had no "hidden" agenda.) We'll add party identifications to the summaries for the next election.
For future candidate questionnaires, one reader suggested including questions from readers. We'll try it for the upcoming Kansas City Council races.
We'll make some changes, and we'll continue to embrace the tradition of endorsements. It's done in the spirit of public service and well within our mission as an editorial board.
Post-election, it's time to congratulate the victors, console the defeated and urge them all take down the yard signs.
Can I come out of the woodshed now?
For the record, here are the editorial board members: Miriam Pepper, editorial page editor; Stephen Winn, deputy editorial page editor; Laura Scott, assistant editorial page editor; Charles Coulter, op-ed editor; Lee Judge, political cartoonist; Lewis W. Diuguid, vice president/community resources; editorial writers/columnists Yael T. Abouhalkah, E. Thomas McClanahan and Bill Tammeus; and publisher Arthur S. Brisbane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reach Miriam Pepper, editorial page editor, call (816) 234-4421 or send e-mail to mpepper@kcstar.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 kansascitystar and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kansascity.com
Dear KC Star,
Thank you for your explanation, very revealing/hidden/etc.....
So, you do understand and accept the fact that you constantly lose subscribers and advertising. Very big of you and hope unemployment will not last too long when cut backs at the Star continue.
Here's a great letter, but it doesn't even come close to leveling the playing field:
Your pre-election Sunday Opinion page (11/3) is typical of the daily liberal bias exhibited by your newspaper. The editorial, with few exceptions, urges voters to vote a straight Democratic ticket and to approve nearly all the proposed tax increases.
On the op-ed page, columnist Ellen Goodman extols the virtues of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Maureen Dowd is in her usual fit of anger with the Republicans (today she has selected Donald Rumsfeld as her target). And The Star's Rhonda Chriss Lokeman is pushing Paul Wellstone/Walter Mondale. The only thing missing is the harangue against President Bush from Molly Ivins.
The only conservative voice in the Opinion section, William Safire, does not demonize Democrats or push Republican candidates, but instead chooses to talk about world issues. This seems to be a recurring theme on the editorial page. Liberals attack the next person on their Republican hit list, while a lone conservative talks about substantive issues.
Lee Larson
Prairie Village
AMEN!
Like a lot of people, I don't read editorials too often. But they are a good thing because they honestly reveal the biases. Some newspapers do try to split their endorsements between the parties fairly evenly by endorsing all liberal Republicans. Better they be honest. There is nothing wrong with being an old-fashioned Republican or Democratic newspaper.
Our point should not be that they should write different editorials. It is that we disagree, for good reasons, with those they do write, but are glad they were honest enough to show the public their liberal bias.
Holy Molely! What a bucket of worms this would open up.
Now there's a qualification for ya!
Also, it is a LIE that they allow dissent. They allow token dissent. That doesn't count.
Their parent corporation, Knight Ridder, says that they should not be captives to any one ideology. HA! They couldn't be more captive.
I mentioned to her that I would like to have a reply. I said that replpy or not, I would discuss this issue on my national radio broadcast in the mornings on "American Breakfast." I will be interested to see whether she does reply, and what she said.
Congressman Billybob
I'll complain vehemently when a newspaper (or any other media outlet) is biased in its coverage of the news. When it comes to editorializing, though, a paper should have strong positions, backed up by facts. If you don't like the KC Star, then don't read it, but don't demand that their staff change its opinions to avoid offending some readers. They are entitled to their judgements, and you are entitled to stop giving them money if you find those judgements so offensive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.