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
Albert Brisbane (1809-1890), American social theorist, founded experimental communes in New Jersey.
Arthur Brisbane,(1864-1936), son of the above, American writer and Hearst editor, known as the "master of the big, blaring headline and of the atrocity story".
If so, and it looks so, creepiness seems to run in the family. Probably all three are still voting.
Leni
Pepper's statement to the contrary, I'd like to see them fully admit up front the party registrations of each of these individuals.
Sounds like a Monty Python skit character to me. Arthur "Two Balls" Brisbane!
They should not exist as a way around Campaign Finance laws for the Democrats.
Actually, I work for the Star (but not on the editorial board).
After seeing the endorsements on Monday, I had planned on writing a letter. I just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
After reading pepper's latest missive, I feel the need to fast-track the letter.
I'm gratified to see that the Star will be adding party designations on its next endorsement roundup. That should prove an interesting sight next time.
In the meantime, Pepper never really addresses the reasons why the Star ended up endorsing nearly all Democrats - 35 out of 46 national and state races, with all of the Republicans endorsed either running unopposed or facing token opposition in GOP-heavy state legislature seats - on its slate. Or what the implications might be for a newspaper trying to represent and speak to a politically split metropolitan area.
I am sure that the endorsement process unfolds as Pepper says it does. It's just "majority vote." Yet votes will always unfold in lopsided fashion like this when they end up hiring liberal after liberal for key editorial posts.
And like most newsrooms, they seem to have no clue that there might be anything wrong with that.
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.
Pepper's statement to the contrary, I'd like to see them fully admit up front the party registrations of each of these individuals.
I think I can shed some light on their leanings.
Pepper and Tammeus are moderately liberal. Winn is a staunch liberal. So are Scott, Duiguid, and Judge. Yael covers municipal subjects and it's hard to get a read on him, though he strikes me as being close to middle of the road, or evenhanded, at any rate. I don't know much about Coulter. McClanahan is, to my knowledge, the only bonafide conservative - and a very moderate one, really - on the staff. It's become much more liberal since they gave Rich Hood the heave-ho.
In other words, with this staff, it is no surprise that they voted as they did on candidate after candidate.
Which is to say: Republicans only get endorsed when they have no other real choice.
Read that We will tell you what you think
And yes, I get annoyed with the persistant left-wing bias of most journalists too, but change will be slow in coming. In the meantime, the best way to fight it is to use the language of journalistic ethics, hopefully forcing them to confront bias in terms they already accept.
Nobody accused them of bias, they just bought more yellow dogfood.
On the other hand, I put in great effort to know the candidates. I went to live debates for each major candidate at least once. Miriam Pepper is available at mpepper@kcstar.com Send only plain text messages, no attachments. They are virus terrified.
Uh huh...you identified the candidates' parties in the editorials, so you didn't feel like you had to when making endorsements. After all, would people vote according to your summary when they hadn't read all the dozens of editorials, and gotten that vital information already?
According to you, you darn well hope so.
Nice try.
If you want to see an editorial board that does a much better job, look at the Wichita Eagle. They may not be perfect, they certainly aren't conservative, but they care more about fairness than they do about ideology--and I'm a hard sell. They certainly aren't predictable like the Star is. They go to extra effort to either allow the target of their criticism to respond, or to find a good source of dissent from a professional writer. Their editorials usually do an excellent job of weighing the pros and cons, proving that they fully understand them. My views are usually well represented. If they aren't, I complain and guess what? If they agree (and they usually do because I try to only complain if the imbalance is excessive) they fix it. It is possible to do a balanced job while being honest, bold, and confident. It takes character. Something the Star staff is greatly lacking, imo.
Letters to the Editor are great, and essential. But let's be real; the amateurs can't always compete with the professionals. Plus, her argument that the letters section is larger than the editorial section is so lame. Only one or two of the letters are actually from a conservative viewpoint, on average (sometimes none of them are), and each of the editorial members also get their own lengthy column to espouse more liberal garbage. (Not that they aren't entitled to do that, but again, it's about balance.) Do you know how much space they devoted to promoting Carnahan? It was unbelievable. McClanahan wrote a pro-Talent piece, but he was vastly out-voiced. It was so excessive it was almost comical.
With the new CFR laws taking effect, the media has a blank check to dominate political discourse while the rest of us are grossly restricted. This is a huge issue, especially in markets, like KC, where one publication holds a monopoly, and we cannot let it stand!
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.