Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

TEMPLE: Endorsements raise questions

By John Temple, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 16, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size  

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Map my news

If only we could speak with those who are gone. If only we could ask them how they would answer the questions we struggle with today.

In our search for wisdom, we are left to imagine how they might respond. We put words in their mouths to test whether they ring true, knowing that we can never be certain.

This week, as I prepared for the gathering today where many will pay homage to the life and work of a great Coloradan - journalist Bill Hosokawa - these feelings weighed especially heavily on me.

For seven years, Bill carried on a conversation with the readers - and journalists - of this newspaper, answering the many questions that came his way as its readers' representative. He retired at age 77, the week before I joined the paper in 1992. But over the years we developed a bond, perhaps cemented by our shared passion for journalism and our experience as the sons of immigrants.

This week I wished he had been here to speak with me about the questions that arose after my most recent column about where to draw the line when it comes to journalists and political participation.

I argued that to maintain readers' trust in the impartiality of our coverage, journalists needed to refrain from voting in caucuses or doing anything else political that would compromise their independence.

Among the many responses I received were a handful challenging the consistency of my approach.

"OK, I got it - your news reporters should not actively engage in politics," wrote Gary Fornander, of Colorado Springs. "I agree.

"So - I know the usual argument that the news and editorial sides of newspapers are separate. In the end, however, the paper as a whole and you as the publisher are responsible for both. You make ultimate decisions about news coverage, and you are a big part of ultimate decisions about the editorial side, certainly on endorsements. So, how do you square the 'purity' argument from your article today with the fact that the Rocky makes endorsements of candidates and issues?"

I knew Bill must have faced similar questions in his day. After all, in his more than 30 years at The Denver Post, he had served as the paper's editorial page editor. But in searching our archives, I could find no column where he had addressed the question head-on.

He did, however, provide some guidance.

"In the early days of this country, many newspapers were founded expressly to present opinions, usually those of the editor, about political issues," he reminded readers in one of his columns. "Publication of news as we know it today was incidental to the expression of opinion. But times have changed. Today, responsible newspapers draw a sharp line between reporting news and presenting commentary."

The problem is, though, that what we as journalists may see as a sharp line can look pretty blurry to readers like Fornander.

We go to lengths to draw a sharp line. For example, we separate the editorial page from the rest of the paper by putting it at the back of the main news section and even making it look different. The writers of editorials are separate from the rest of the newsroom, although as Fornander points out, they ultimately report to me, just as news reporters do. Our editorials are unsigned. They are not one individual's opinion. Yet we ask editorial writers to follow the same principle of abstaining from partisan activity.

I would have found it much easier to answer Fornander 10 years ago, when I became editor. A newspaper has a responsiblity to show leadership in its community. Ultimately, I thought that meant urging people to vote for certain candidates or initiatives, especially those for which there was little attention. Yet, that was at a time when information was far less accessible. The newspaper was still the key source for political news. Ten years later, the Web has changed the landscape.

Today, I am less certain. I wrestle with the question and wonder what Bill would have said.

"Integrity and credibility are not simply pompous buzzwords," he wrote in one column. "They are a newspaper's or TV news program's most important assets."

I agree. So what must be done to protect the paper's integrity and credibility?

I continue to believe there's a place for the newspaper to comment on the actions and statements of candidates through a principled prism, one that's apparent to readers. I don't believe endorsements cross the line and compromise our standards of objectivity in news coverage.

But I understand why some believe endorsements go too far in confusing readers regarding our political independence.

What do you think?

John Temple can be reached at editor@RockyMountainNews.com or by mail at 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202.

Comments

  • February 16, 2008

    3:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    What do I think? I think you have written a very confusing piece. Edit yourself before relase.

  • February 16, 2008

    11:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Salzman writes:

    Newspapers should definitely make endorsements. It's part of their role in stirring up debate in the community. It helps keep people engaged--just as long as your editorial page doesn't shut out opposing views in the letters page at a minimum.

    Plus it would be artificial not to make endorsements yet editorialize on everything else.

    You could argue that, for major endorsements, you should offer the other side a rebuttal, like a Speakout or something. Or perhaps publish an editorial from another newspaper that's endorsed the other side.

    The public's perception that journalists are biased isn't going to be changed by your trying to hide the fact that journalists have opinions. Journalists need to produce great journalism, so the news reporting speaks for itself.

    And journalists need to take time and space to try to explain what they do and how they do it to the public. I like it when you and other media outlets cover controversies involving journalism or when you address journalistic issues in editorials or your columns, like you did today. This was good.

    I respect your view that journalists shouldn't put themselves in a position where they are perceived as partisan. But this isn't practical. Everyone knows journalists, like anyone else, may have political opinions. They aren't freaks. They need to show in their work that, as professionals, they offer fair and accurate coverage of an issue as best they can.

    So I think it's clear that journalists should be able to go to caucuses. It's wrong for you to try to stop them from being citizens.

    As editor, give them the time and space to demonstrate in their work that they are fair and accurate. This is your only hope for winning over the public.

  • February 16, 2008

    4:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gfornander writes:

    Thank you for this article today responding to my earlier email. If I were confident of a single, simple solution for how publishers should handle this issue, I would have given you that instead of posing the question to you. I appreciate your serious, thoughtful response.

    My sensitivity to this news/opinion divide is undoubtedly influenced by 40 years of reading The Gazette here in Colorado Springs. Under certain regimes of publisher and editor, the Freedom Newspaper libertarian philosophy of The Gazette has obviously influenced its news side. At other times, I think they have done better. The Gazette pretends to avoid some of the conflict between news and opinion by a policy of not endorsing candidates. But since they write editorials—including just before elections—praising the strengths of some candidates and condemning the shortcomings of others, it is a distinction without a difference, and a bit of a sham. Not doing endorsements does not solve the dilemma.

    I was aware of the history of early newspapers in this nation (largely written to express opinions) as described in your quotes from Mr. Hosokawa. Certainly, we newspaper readers now expect both news and opinion (and from a business standpoint, you would not be able to provide only one or the other).

    You wrote, “The problem is, though, that what we as journalists may see as a sharp line can look pretty blurry to readers like Fornander.” I would not describe it quite that way. I understand the sharp line in most aspects of the paper. It is just at the top—especially as publisher—where the roles overlap. My question was not intended to challenge or confront whether you were making proper decisions, but more to find out your thinking on that dual role with news and opinion. Thank you for addressing that.

    The fact you write a weekly column about how decisions are made at the Rocky is wonderful. I see that you get beat up a bit—including today—about that being self-serving rationalization. That goes with the territory. As for me, I appreciate the fact you will discuss the complexities of your job, how decisions are made, and, as I recall over the years, acknowledgement when the paper falls short.

    I am sure that in the future there will be times I agree and times I disagree with the lines you draw. But I certainly appreciate that you are willing to engage in these issues on a weekly basis in your column, and that you are willing to give serious and thoughtful—and non-defensive— responses to your readers. The search for the proper lines is always going to be an unfinished journey. Thanks for sharing your thoughts along the way.

    Gary Fornander