Every election season it usually doesn't take too long for one political candidate or political party to accuse The Free Press of bias or favoritism in coverage of candidates.
Sometimes, it may look like we're covering one side more than the other. Believe me, we really try to play it pretty even, and we rely on our reporters to tell us why they think a certain event should be covered and why one can be listed in our campaign notebook as an item of interest.
Local newspapers must focus on local people. So the local candidates will get top priority in coverage in many, but not all cases. Relevance to our readership is another consideration. A candidate discussing local government aid might get more attention than one speaking say on U.S. foreign policy.
Above all, we must focus on information that will be useful to our voters. I'm always amazed how candidates want to get coverage for every stump speech they make, even if it's the same one time after time, but are less willing to answer hard questions about their voting record.
But we know the public and our readers want us to be fair in our coverage and that is what we strive to do with the added criteria of local relevance.
One thing we want to make clear to all candidates: We don't endorse any candidates for any office. We discontinued our endorsement practice in the 2008 election.
We don't want to be viewed as "kingmakers" and suggest that our endorsement would somehow translate to our readers feeling we favor one candidate over the other in news coverage. The editorial page opinion decisions were and are always made separate from the decisions on coverage.
It doesn't mean however, we won't take it upon ourselves to criticize a particular candidate's position on an issue.
Our readers expect us to use our knowledge of the issues from covering things for decades to inform them about the impact policies may have on them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“Political Coverage: How To Be Fair” is a recent Free Press Blog.
ReplyDeleteI must be missing something. The Free Press has become stagnant in its responsibility to monitor and hold elected officials accountable for their performance and voting record. Instead we often get an eerie press silence and lack of investigating reporting on politically sensitive issues. This smells of protecting a political agenda and certainly doesn’t lend itself to fair and balanced reporting.
Examples: Where is the reporting of Representative Walz on controversial legislation and how he votes? When has the Free Press criticized Walz on voting for more spending bills that are debt funded and driven us into an even deeper national debt? Where is the reporting on legislators that continually and blatantly ignore the fiscally responsible Pay Go rules?
Recently during a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, The House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows reckless legislators to begin spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the constraints of a budget. Transparency? No.
The procedural and close bipartisan vote passed 215-210. 38 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote against deeming. Walz was not one of the crossovers and voted yes with the Pelosi group. Controversial issue? Yes. Reported? No.
The 1st amendment is about free speech and limiting reckless power of government. Much of the traditional press has given up their watchdog responsibility by failing to report on important issues that don’t meet their political agendas.
Proposed government subsidies and regulation for failing news medias will be a final attempt to break the cherished 1st amendment.
Wayne Comstock