Media Bias Justification Gymnastics - KCStar explains why they always endorse Democrats

The Kansas City Star ^ | November 10, 2002 | Biased Miriam Pepper

[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

[Freedom2specul8]

"The editorial board is comprised of 10 long-tenured, not-infallible journalists"

CORRECTION

"The editorial board is comprised of 10 long-tenured, not-infallible biased liberal journalists"

[Tribune7]

How's it's circulation doing?

[Freedom2specul8]

dropping...

[Tribune7]

I'm giving big-city dailies five years. They're dinosaurs.

[Kay Soze]

WOW 25 years!

Which means they are unaware of the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident fabricated by a man name President Johnson (Dem)gave my nation the Vietnam war solely to better his position if he chose to run for reelection!!!!

[Kay Soze]

wow 25 years...

Or that only one party ever rounded up US Citizens and put them in concetration camps.

And did so soley on the basis of their race!!!

[MainFrame65]

The paper actually published almost all of this letter a couple of months ago.

To the editor, Commercial Appeal

Contrary to the opinion of Susan Adler Thorp, designating everyone with a political opinion to the right of Lamar Alexander as "the Taliban wing" is inaccurate, unfair, and insulting. If Ms Thorp troubled herself to consider what is happening in the world, she would understand that the Taliban she likens us to is a bigoted, murderous bunch of thugs who are true enemies of our Country. She might not like us - and to tell the truth, I really don't solicit her approval - but that transcends polite discourse. An insult of that nature demands a response, and deserves an apology.

Your newspaper has shamelessly engaged in this sort of name calling and personal insult for a long time now, and you have extended this stealth opinionizing beyond the editorial pages. You did the same thing in response to opposition to your cheer leading for an income tax, by continually characterizing the clear majority opinion as an unruly mob of horn honkers, as though we had no voice, no mind, and no right to such a contrary opinion. The only alternative opinions you allow yourselves to contend with is a limited portion of the letters space.

I still believe in newspapers as an important voice of the people, although my faith has been shaken as your editorial positions lost their balance and focused exclusively leftward. Worse, your news coverage has echoed this drift. I have learned that important ideas and opinions need to be tested in the fire of debate, and not merely among those of like persuasion. Your viewpoint has become as monochromatic as your newsprint. You need to introduce real debate, with vigor and heat, within your editorial board. You think that you understand opposing views, but that is only your imagination. For all the diversity of opinion you display, you might as well drop all your brains in a bucket on the way out and just pick up the one on top when you come back to work.

You have been crossing the line between disagreement and disrespect too frequently lately, and I believe it is time for you to return to a contest of opinions instead of epithets. You already have the advantage of owning the forum. My only weapons are the strength and clarity of my arguments, and then only when you allow them to appear.

[Free State Four]

If I don't know the candidates well enough to make up my own mind, I just vote opposite to their recommendation.

Oh, my goodness. How many times did I use that system? But THEN, I found FR. (Although, funny enough, it usually happens that FR endorses the people that the "mainstream media" disses!) Go figure!

RAT Patrol, I finally, finally broke with the KC Star (because, until then, I felt it was some sort of kamikazee duty to read the local paper) when 1) they outed Father Thom uselessly and 2) Louis Duigiud did that hit piece during impeachment that skewered the "Radical Republicans" (the ones from the Civil War Era) and the present day "impeachment" Republicans - as out-of-control sex perverts who wanted to subjugate African-American people. He has no grasp of history and certainly no knowledge of facts. I immediately cancelled my subscription. I would not pay for a rag that published actual lies. fsf

[gusopol3]

wow

[Free State Four]

I'm giving big-city dailies five years. They're dinosaurs.

Yup. And the internet is going to drive the stake through their collective hearts. :o) fsf

[gusopol3]

what then--all vanities on FR?

[MarkL]

Is the KC (Red) Star still in business? I haven't read a copy of that rag since before the Brady Bill was passed.

And since I don't have a bird or puppy, I haven't had any reason to buy the paper.

Mark

[ozzymandus]

The editor of the paper I now take, the Hays Daily News, opined that the election of sebelius was a "mandate" for higher taxes. This brilliant deduction was made after 2 proposed local tax increases were voted down by 2-to-1 margins. Apparently voting not to raise taxes isn't a "mandate" for anything.

[RAT Patrol]

They are not worthy of my puppy's poo.

[RAT Patrol]

That's despicable. Sebelius campaign on no tax increases. Where were they?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

What's the problem? I may disagree with the newspaper's conclusions, and their practice of not including party affiliations in endorsements, but what's your complaint other than the outcome?

I generally agree with you, but the KC Star is the only paper in town and has a long history of both editorial and news coverage bias.

[AdA$tra]

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, then we endose the most liberal, socialist candidate we can find.

Sorry, I added the non-italicized stuff.

[AdA$tra]

Actually, I work for the Star (but not on the editorial board).

I have a shirt tail in-law that writes for the Star. She write fluff for the foo-foo section. She is still a lock-step liberal although she has a big heart and we love her anyway.

[Free State Four]

what then--all vanities on FR?

Well, I pay for an on-line subscription to the WSJ because they don't lie to me. And if they editorialize, they do it on the editorial page.

If the Star revises its standards, I might subscribe again. fsf

[flushed with pride]

A little over twenty years ago I knew a young moderately conservative man who was an excellent artist, college educated, experienced, etc. He applied for the editorial cartoonist's position at the Star which was open at the time. He soon found out that the 'conservatives need not apply' policy was in effect at the Star, where experience and superior skills always get trumped by politics. They wound up giving the position to Lee Judge, a thoroughly incompetent juvenile whose politics were/are hard left. His drawings are for the most part unintelligible, and reveal his lack of both talent and grasp of the issues. Even though left-winger-Publisher Brisbane didn't hire Judge, they have been bosom buddies dating back to the days when Brisbane was a just a section B columnist. In other words, don't look for Judge to lose his job anytime soon.

The Star traditionally has been a house organ for the Democrat party (pro-union, pro-abort, pro-gun control, etc.) with few exceptions over the years. That's why their subscription/circulation continues to fall like a rock into a bottom-less abyss.