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.
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!