Down at the Agora, they're asking: What are facts, as opposed to partisanship?
In short, as sitting state representative and candidate for re-election, does Ed Clere continue to receive weekly Tribune column space under the logic that his essays constitute "reporting" from the legislature? Can such "reporting" truly be non-partisan?
If newspaper management judges that his content is sufficiently non-partisan to merit retaining on a weekly basis, where does this leave his likely opponent, Shane Gibson?
Is it enough to offer Gibson equal space and time?
Is it really likely that either candidate will be using his column to "report" as opposed to politicking?
And, a precedent thus established, what of other columnists and their status as potential candidates?
If I decided to run for 3rd district council, Or Matt Nash, would we be allowed to keep our weekly columns?
If so, would Steve Price (and other candidates) be offered a equal space? What if Price were to make the argument that he's not an effective writer, and ask that his equal space be taken by Professor Erika? Wouldn't the newspaper be forced to grant his request?
Is fairness alone worth the vicious beating that logic and syntax would take in such a scenario?
I thought it was a constructive exchange yesterday. Others might disagree. I'm inclined to accept the Tribune's reasoning even though I regard the precedent as a slippery slope, and am tempted to test it. If only there was time. Also, know that none of this is directed at Ed Clere. This is about the Tribune and its editorial policy.
Without going into greater detail, something I hope to have the chance to do here or in next week's column, all of it left me with this thought for candidate Gibson's contemplation:
Dear Shane
Irrespective of the Tribune's reasoning in this instance, it's a tough spot for you to be. Yes, the newspaper has offered you equal time and space. But not only does your opponent have the advantage of incumbency in the context of a weekly (ahem) "reporting" slot -- he's also a former journalist and a fine writer. And yet, you need to take this opportunity. Claim your space. If no one else in the local Democratic apparatus has the inclination to be pro-active, it's your chance to display something approximating a pulse. Heaven knows your party needs it.
And while you're at it, find someone vigorous and yourthful to freshen your Facebook candidate page. You might be surprised. Someone in your party needs to come to grips with the necessity of engaging non-traditional, youthful voters. Erika's generation is dying out. That's why these so-called "Democrats" are so bitter and resentful. You're still young enough to avoid that trap. Has there ever been a more hidebound and moribund party that still manages somehow to win elections? It can't last forever. It's already gone in the county.
Unsolicited advice. Do what you will with it. Whatever you do, take them up on it and write.
R
14 comments:
Hopefully other candidates for State Legislature won't be offered columns.
REV. 8:7
I'm pretty sure that the Tribune would not allow a ghost written column but how would they prove it if the intent was to deceive? I don't think that anyone would believe that this scenario would be too far fetched.(I 100% believe that Mr. Clere is writing his)
Where is the line, that the candidate has to cross between "information" and "politics" to lose their column? Even a general definition?
All candidates? In a primary, there can be several for one office. Which offices?
When a column like Clere's most recent one seeks to blame one party's leadership for problems and positions the writer's party as the solution to those problems, it's extremely difficult to justify it as valuable reporting as Steve Kozarovich tried to do yesterday.
Allowing a sitting politician to write a column was the slippery policy slope. Not having a consistent policy as is the case now is what happens when a paper goes careening off that slope.
If you're a candidate for office and the Tribune likes your writing, you're in. If they don't, you're not. Those aren't readily identifiable standards by which anyone can make decisions. They're personal preferences applied at whim.
Should the Tribune be considered a campaign contributor in those instances? And, if so, should the dollar value of those contributions be counted as a matter of required campaign finance reporting?
If someone paid for that much consistent space in a paper (which a majority of local candidates probably couldn't afford), they'd have to report it in their expense accounting.
Unless the Tribune opens equal, consistent space to all candidates for every office, it seems only fair that the Tribune's campaign donation be likewise included.
Or, as most-recent-past-publisher John Tucker said:
If you are a registered voter, you probably regularly read a newspaper. It stands to reason that a voter can be swayed by what he or she reads. As such, we take pains during election time to give equal time to the candidates. We want to avoid showing signs of bias and unduly influencing readers and thus voters. Allowing a candidate to continue to have weekly exposure, even if he kept away from topics that concerned the election could be unfair to the other candidates who don’t write for us.
In addition, when a columnist runs for office, some readers might suspect that we may show favoritism to that person within our coverage of the election. A reader might also assume that because this newspaper publishes their opinions on a weekly basis, we would endorse them as a candidate. For these and a few other reasons, we have a policy that prohibits reporters and editors at this paper from running or holding a public office.
Internally, we thought we could cover the school board election without bias. After all, these columnists do not work with us on a regular basis. They send their columns in from their home office and we have little to nothing to do with what they write about and certainly don’t try to influence their opinion. But perception is everything, and we could see where the public may make some assumptions.
The struggle was that, in truth, we didn’t want to have to tell these columnists to stop writing.
It is admirable to want to serve your community as an elected official. Goodness knows there is no money and little thanks in it. In general, they are simply citizens wanting to make a positive impact. Furthermore, the columnists in question enjoy writing for us and we appreciate them doing so. Asking them to stop writing would feel as if we were penalizing them for wanting to do some good.
We mulled it over for some time. We talked about asking them not to write about topics relating to the election. We thought about suspending their columns a month before the vote. But ultimately we felt that the right thing to do, in order to protect our integrity, was to stop publishing their columns until after the elections, creating a new policy to be implemented from here on out.
This got me thinking, so I started adding up my campaign donations, but I can't remember if I bought that "Vote for Pedro" shirt before or after I moved to New Albany.
How can you tell who wrote any column? How is not allowing any columns fairer than giving equal time? It's a subjective argument, and media bias has become so rampant globally that the paranoia is understandable.
All I can share is this story.
At my first job in Tennessee, our publisher/owner(who was a local man owning four local newspapers) was friends with our sitting state rep, though they were on opposite sides of the party line. This state rep bought several ads and opened several doors for the owner, I'm sure more doors than any of us even knew about. This state rep wrote a weekly column for us, as did our state senator and sometimes, our mayor.
His challenger was a councilman in the city I covered, a nice young man with no baggage to speak of. As what I thought was standard practice, when he filed to run I immediately called him up and ran a big feature on him, the same that I had done for the incumbent. The next day I was chewed out royally by the boss, and told I was not to even mention this candidates' name in council stories I wrote. He was not to get any publicity, no pictures, nothing. The incumbent was allowed to continue his column up to election and we were forced to write several stories on everything he did to make him seem credible.
A few weeks before the election, our owner ran a top of the fold story on the front page of each of his newspapers declaring our support for the incumbent.
It was total b.s. I flat out refused to write anymore stories on him and still snuck in some stuff on the councilman. I called our press association to ask if the biased angles were even legal, and was told unfortunately so. The incumbent won easily, and I decided then and there I was gone ASAP, and I left shortly thereafter.
We talk fairness all the time at our papers here, making the extra call, giving everybody a voice that we can. It's not perfect, but it's a goal and one fostered by management here and company wide. When you came from the situation I did, and you compare to The Trib and Evening News, it's night and day.
All I can ask is to work for an employer that represents journalistic integrity. Before I signed anything here I was given an ethics book for journalism and forced to read it and answer questions about it.
I say this to say it's a big, big difference between purposely swaying an election and what we're talking about here. No matter how it's decided, somebody will call foul. Tis the nature of the beast. Journalism is not an exact science, and I guess as long as people on both sides of the fence are saying we're biased, we must be doing something right.
How can you really tell? You can't and that's why, during an election cycle, you don't take the chance. Election cycle being--first filing day through election day.
I can respect that opinion. Another opinion would be a newspaper would do a disservice to its readers by removing its columns tied to politicians, especially when both parties have been offered equal time.
It comes down to philosophies on what you think a newspaper is. To you, it may be that we should decide what is fair and what is not. To me, I may believe that a newspaper is a forum for the willing to participate and provide opinions on which readers can make their own decisions.
I could understand the argument better if both sides weren't offered equal time. But should tv stations quit holding debates if one of the candidates isn't a good speaker? Should radio stations quit interviewing candidates if one of the competitors has a better voice than the other? You say fair is by offering nothing, I say fair is by offering everything. Like I said, it's all subjective.
Also on the ghostwriting thing, does that mean you don't respect any speech made by any president of the past 20 years. Yes, even the great orator Mr. Obama reads speeches somebody else wrote.
Obviously it would be a little strange if we demanded every columnist to sit at a cubicle here so we can watch them while they write. But hypothetically, if a candidate is fine with John Doe writing their column, it's no different that what Obama and other presidents have done and will continue to do.
You forgot that we are talking about a REGULAR column. At least I was.
I enjoy Ed Clere's column when I am learning about the process of the legislature and what is being passed in Indianapolis. When he starts pointing fingers I am turned off.
In the past we got the same thing from Cochran but it was in a political mailing or a speech in front of a crowd of Democrats.
This is not an instance of offering everything or nothing. It's an instance of selectively offering whatever whenever in the absence of a standing policy that applies to everyone.
The question was asked: "If any other columnist decides to run for office, will their column still be published?"
The answer was maybe, maybe not-- dependent not on any preexisting guidelines decipherable by potential candidates and the public at large but rather the preferences of a few people that could change from day to day, person to person, and race to race. It's not a level playing field.
Any law or rule can be changed at the whim of a few ppl. City council does it every month. A private biz certainly has the right to do so. Sounds like your gripes are based on what ifs, not anything tangible. You're also mis-representing the facts. Clere didn't get his column till after he won, not during the election. His case is unique as opposed to one deciding to run that already has a column.
Funny stuff, D. You make up things I didn't say and then assign blame based on me having said them.
Nothing I said is factually untrue. According to Steve Kozarovich, the Tribune does not have a standing policy regarding candidates writing regular columns.
Direct SK quote: "The current editorial board does not have a black-white policy on the issue" and further, "we felt it necessary to examine each case by case".
Again, a decision wasn't made to change the rules but rather to not have consistent rules at all. That's not a "what if". It's current reality as announced by the publisher.
If I have accused you of something you didn't imply then I apologize.
Really, this issue doesn't get me that wound up, and as I said, I can see both sides. And I want to assure all that I will step down from my post next year before running for mayor.
Post a Comment