Why we do it
Published Monday, May 5, 2008
Page 4 on Sunday and again today contained one of the most controversial things our newspaper editorial board does.
We endorsed candidates in the mayor and aldermen races.
After more than two weeks of hour-long interviews with nearly every candidate, our board (three folks) sat down to discuss who we thought would best serve the City of Natchez. And we made our picks.
I'm sure we upset a lot of readers, candidates, sources and advertisers.
That comes with the territory. But upsetting folks certainly isn't our goal.
The way I see it, you as the voter probably don't have the time to sit with each candidate for an hour to throughly question them on all the issues.
But, doing just that is part of my job.
Nowhere in our endorsement editorials does it say that you — the voter — HAVE to vote they way we say. But for those of you who don't feel that you've properly studied the candidates, our endorsements could be helpful.
The nods we gave are merely our opinion, and we could be very wrong. But right now, with the information we have, we think our slate is the best one.
It's the role of a community newspaper to inform the public. It's the role of that newspaper's editorial board to offer educated opinions on important issues. We hope we've done that.
Thanks Julie
Comments
That's fine and dandy! As long as you agree with me! You are close sometimes, but I am always right!
Julie, The Democrat's endorsements did not personally offend me at all. Newspapers like to endorse candidates, pure and simple. But your editorials claim that the Alderman's race is the most important. And it was with the aldermen candidates where your paper gave us the least amount of information - dreadfully little considering you spent an hour interviewing them. Your writing here seems to suggest that rather than letting us receive information and form our own opinion, we should simply let you do the research and then follow your suggestion on voting. Sorry, but I think the Democrat fell flat when it came to informing us on the candidates. The exception would be the candidates for mayor where you did relay more information to us. But again, you tell us that race is not the most important.
No one should be upset. We know what to expect of the Democrat. More like the National Enquirer than the New York Times.
I'm most surprised that there have been no lawsuits over the vitriolic and often misinformed postings. Personal attacks against citizens who are not public officals should never be allowed. Hateful and untrue accusations are not allowed by most papers. I feel that this regurgitation of old rumors, lies and innuendo are destructive to our community.
Morning Julie. No way to please everybody all the time.
God bless.
Julie, do you reinterview the aldermen candidates for the run offs, and do you re-interview the mayoral candidates for the general election? I, for one, would like a clarification on where these people stand on issues which are important to this city.
Can't say local issues involvement is any problem but I can generally say...
Newspapers of modern times have drifted far from "informing" into the "influencing"... its a missionary zeal thing for the modern journalist... they are not supposed to "save the world", just give people all the facts... that is too dull these days... so now the common goal is pretending to be objective while being fed lefty AP-UPI articles...no, they don't attempt to verify a thing... even with the web... its like spreading gossip... heck, some even run a tacky vicious cartoon when the daughter of a president gets married... (not a democrat president of course)
One thing most newspapers have in common...they have lots of excuses as to why its all a "coincidence" that a pattern of bias appears in their paper...its all the reader's fault...we, the dufus readers, just don't understand. Look for infrequent tiny retractions on Page 8.
Many don't understand why Doonesberry can't be on the Opinion Page (it is in a few papers)...for example. That alone tells you all you want to know about ego and agenda. "Sins of omission" are legion these days.
Newspapers are all "objective", all "balanced"...just ask them. Hence the explosion of Blogs and Web-based sources that are unfiltered for the reader.
As Sgt. Friday on TV used to say, "Just the facts, mam, just the facts."
Truth should always be the prime directive. Ever seen polls on public respect for journalists? Lower than low. Work on that.
I like your writing Julie, and perhaps I look at things a bit too comprehensively, but my opinion is that the quality of news publishing would improve if the Democrat felt less inclined to take sides on public choice matters.
For a great many years one side of politics has branded the other side -- and the media that informs us all -- of being hopelessly biased. They do this for simple partisan gain, but their persistent efforts fueled by large vested interests have spawned a culture of whiners that always seem to revere their pet perceptions more than new information.
Look at the post above to see what I mean. Poor reelman is infected with his own wisdom about bias. No one can tell him his simple wisdoms are wrong, when on occasion the picture is bigger than he sees. It has become a political trap for a certain type of personal vision and a social bonding experience to share their hatred of the bias their opponents MUST have.
Mississippians are especially susceptible to this esteem-based thought filter, and I suspect that sort of thinking has been what puts us at the bottom of so many lists in this country.
It is too often too easy for people to be led into a trap of believing that their simple wisdoms always outrank the specifics the news media is privy to. Every news professional in this country should be aware of this miscegenation of thought and fight it.
You should NEVER cowtow to the idea that to sell papers good writing means writing to this prejudice as one recent anti-Obama Democrat editorial (not yours) did. You will be branded biased by the right for anything you say that is not to their liking, and you will get no quarter from them for writing cute agreements pitched to a low common denominator.
It just complicates matters to come out taking sides on elections and issues that will be up for vote. Everyone thinks they have special knowledge and special insight. Smother us with well- assessed viewpoints from the left, the right, the middle and the fringe, but make no conclusions that are headlines.
Post a comment