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

[RAT Patrol]

I subscribed to the Star last summer only to cancel my subscription within two weeks. It was too revolting--and my sister was dying so I just wasn't in the mood. Before that I read them online when I didn't pick up a copy at the newstand.

I've been getting a call from their subscription department about every two weeks. They openly admit that everyone thinks they're too liberal. One guy even stopped by my house and said "We're working on that." I told him if it changes, I'll subscribe, but I won't hold my breath. He also said "They endorsed Taff; did you see that?" I pointed out to him that it was only for the primary (something he apparently didn't realize) so they HAD to endorse a Republican, and Taff was the more liberal choice. This was before they endorsed Moore for the general election.

On a funny note, they also keep reducing the price. I think it started at $18 a month, went to $13 a month, then to $10--a special for my area. I had a dream they called me and reduced the price to $3 a month (or maybe it really happened, lol, I don't remember).

I do try to not be impossible to please. I realize the standard for opinion pages is different than for news pages. But when all their opinions are formed on one-sided news from one-sided views I'm not going to stand by and take it without comment. All I want is some real EFFORT at balance. They do not have to be perfect.

[RAT Patrol]

Excellent letter in your post #47, by the way!

[rwfromkansas]

I am all for a newspaper having the opportunity to present its opinion, as long as it is not in a new story. But, I do think that the opinion page should showcase various views. I also think for a newspaper to come out with great editorials and endorsements....if they care about doing the best job possible...they should attempt to have a fairly balanced staff politically. It doesn't have to be perfect, but having almost all Repubs or Dems does not allow a newspaper to combine enough differing ideas into a central thesis in an editorial. Instead, one opinion is offered and the public gets shortchanged.

[The Iguana]

I can only say that I have worked here for six years or so, and it did not used to be quite this bad.

I'm not saying it was a conservative paper or anything like it. But it was a good deal closer to the center than most major dailies. They endorsed Dole in 1996, after all. They could usually be counted on to steer a conservative line in foreign and fiscal policy, and go left on abortion and gun control.

My impression (and it is not mine alone) is that it has worsened in recent years. The newsroom is more liberal. Gays, for one thing, are much more in evidence than was previously the case. Some more conservative editors like Rich Hood have departed.

The tilt has not gone unnoticed. A few things we've published in recent years have triggered flurries of cancelled subscriptions and pull-outs by advertisers. Unfortunately it has not been enough to make an impact.

I recognize that conservative journalists are thin on the ground. Nonetheless, dailies are shooting themselves in the foot by failing to consider ideology or religious outlook as a category of needed "diversity." Technology is weakening the grip of media monopolies across the country. I can envision the possibility one day soon that the internet and publishing technology may well make possible again the emergence of genuine competing news outlets to daily newspapers. They can no longer take their local news monopolies for granted.

Simply running a conservative columnist every day and a larger letters section doesn't cut the mustard. Even the New York Times does that.

[Disgruntled_Voter]

"They hold a media monopoly"

Seems to me that someone who has access to a television and the internet would never say something like this. Not only is your statement inaccurate when considering other media outlets, it's inaccurate when considering print news. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and many other newspapers are available at your local bookstore or for home delivery the same day they are published. For local news, the Sun newspapers and a variety of local papers are published all over the KC Metro area.
It seems to me that if a person is aware of a bias in the media, then they have the ability to seek out alternative sources of information, not only that, but awareness of bias innoculates a person against it, it shouldn't be effective against someone who's looking out for biased viewpoints.

[MainFrame65]

Thanks. They publish several of my letters every year, but they still ignore what I have to say.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

They endorsed Dole in 1996, after all.

Bob Dole was the senior Senator from Kansas fer cryin' out loud.

[RAT Patrol]

You're right. They hold a PRINT media monopoly. Is that better?

[RAT Patrol]

The Blue Valley Sun is not competition for The Star, nor is it a conservative paper offering balance to the area.

[RAT Patrol]

Excuse me, The Johnson Country Sun. Or, do you mean these publications:

Sun Publications

The Johnson County Sun

Northland Sun-News

KC Jewish Chronicle

KC Nursing News

St. Louis Nursing News

Signature Living

Who owns the Sun anyway?

[GOPJ]

I'll edit this piece for space: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press and their chosen friends. If you don't like it, get your own press.

Note to conservatives: They're right. Get your own press. FOX is making a bundle and publishers who put out conservative books are making a bundle. As someone once said, " This group looks like the United Nations, and has all the real diversity of a San Francisco coffee house." Compete with them. They don't want a conservative in the house? Fine. Start a paper that respect all the cities readers, not just the liberal elite readers. Stun them with honest diversity. Make a bundle.

[RAT Patrol]

but awareness of bias innoculates a person against it, it shouldn't be effective against someone who's looking out for biased viewpoints.

When a publication, such as the Kansas City Star, uses (and abuses) its power to push through legislation like Campaign Finance Reform under the guise that it will level the campaign playing field, then I think it is major hypocrisy for them to be all Democrat all the time during campaign season--the very time they think the rest of the Country should have their First Amendment free speech rights restricted!

No, they're not obligated to be fair, but I'm not obligated to respect them either. And I have no intention of being quiet about it.

[RAT Patrol]

If I had any money I would do just that. I'm looking at starting an anti-Star campaign to drop their circulation even further. No self-respecting Republican should be subscribing to that rag.

[shilohsvictory]

Explains why Fox News is so popular today. "Fair and Balanced" may have been rendered trite after repeating it so many times, but you'd think others in the media (all forms) would get the point.

[RAT Patrol]

You would think, wouldn't you. Does that say it's more about power than it is about money? Seems that way to me.

[shilohsvictory]

An "Anti-Star" campaign? I think the RATS already did that during the impeachment. It was pretty effective now that I think about it.

[GOPJ]

Guilt trip them, show them it's good business, but "require"? Never. I'm going to assume your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek... It's still a free country.

Yep. What we need to do is require that every media outlet and university hire conservatives on an affirmative action basis, reflective of the numbers in the general population.

[axel f]

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

No she didn't. She said she was going to form a committee to find waste in government, then go from there. If a tax increase was needed, then that's what we'd do. Unlike Shallenburger, she refused to sign a "No New Tax Pledge." I have no doubt she will propose a tax increase. Interestingly enough, Bill Graves refused to sign the pledge too.

When Kathleen first ran for insurance commissioner in 1994, she did the same ploy. One of her main campaign themes was that she was going to form a committee to study how to bring more insurance companies to Kansas. Oh, how wonderful, except we've LOST companies, not gained. These next four years should be interesting, to say the least.

[axel f]

Has the Joco Sun not been around very long? Because unbiased, Steve Rose ain't!

[RAT Patrol]

ROTFL!