This is the season when political commentary piles up on the opinion pages as fast and deep as leaves under a maple tree. One forms compost for the soil. The other enriches the civic conversation in which democracy takes root. At least that’s the intent.
This annual crop of commentary comes from several sources — readers who write letters, pundits who write columns, cartoonists who scratch out visual satire, and editorialists who articulate the view of the newspaper’s editorial board.
Many readers, however, uproot that last intruder like a weed. They see endorsement editorials as the paper’s attempt to impose its views on the entire community.
On the day my position as ombudsman was announced, Joseph Flores of Nine Mile Falls sent a thoughtful e-mail wishing me luck and sharing several observations, including this one about endorsements:
“Does the political opinion of a group of journalists carry more weight than a group of North Side businessmen or Gonzaga law professors?”
The only people who can answer that are voters. They’re the ones who decide how heavily to consider the political advice they get during a campaign. And judging by election results, voters accept editorial advice sparingly.
Why, then, do the S-R and so many other American newspapers adhere to the endorsement tradition?
Actually, not all do. When the Observer-Dispatch in Utica, N.Y., decided not to endorse last year, publisher Donna Donovan acknowledged the futility of trying to overcome readers’ skepticism.
“Editors and publishers can talk all they want about the separation of the opinion columns from the news pages, about responsibility to help voters wade through all the flotsam and jetsam, and about how endorsements are simply a suggestion, not a mandate. But the bottom line is: Most readers really don’t want us telling them how to vote.”
Likewise, Tom Lucente of the Lima (Ohio) News said endorsements are a relic.
“If I am reading the editorial page in the first place, I am probably informed enough not to be swayed by a short editorial endorsing a specific candidate,” he said.
Papers that have followed that advice save hours of time normally spent interviewing candidates, poring over questionnaires and tracking down information. But most American newspapers, the S-R included, accept that sacrifice and weigh in, along with the readers and columnists, in a dialogue about the crucial decisions to be made at the polls.
Some papers soften the impact with various strategies. The Miami Herald makes it a point to “recommend” rather than “endorse.” The Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader offers non-endorsed candidates a chance to write a 250-word response. But those papers uphold the practice of joining in the same public conversation that they encourage citizens to enter.
“We often tell our readers that if they don’t vote, they shouldn’t complain about government actions of which they disapprove,” said Peter Lyman, editorial page editor of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Post-Standard. “It seems to me there’s a parallel with the newspaper and endorsements.”
“An endorsement,” wrote Jack Wilson of the Eugene (Ore.) Register-Guard, “should intend to do no more than expand readers’ understanding of a race or an issue, and if that is the extent of its influence, it has filled a valuable purpose.”
The Spokesman-Review’s opinion editor, John Webster, subscribes to Wilson’s view. Elections, he adds, are watershed events from which spill most of the public-policy issues the editorial writers address the rest of the year.
I side with the endorsers. Self-imposed silence at such a time would be an abdication of civic duty by the newspaper — or, for that matter, by the North Side businessmen and GU law professors.
* Thanks to reader Sharon Leon who set the record straight about last week’s reference to Congressman Jim McDermott.
“I watched Rep. McDermott being interviewed on ABC’s `This Week,’ so I know that he didn’t say that Saddam `could be trusted to allow weapons inspections,’ as you wrote in Ombudsman’s Corner (Sunday),” she e-mailed. “McDermott said that he had spoken to a number of top Iraqi officials who all assured him that the weapons inspectors would be allowed free access. He said that we should see IF that is true before considering another approach or war.”
* Spokesman-Review Editor Steven A. Smith will host a public forum from 7 to 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday in the meeting room at Kootenai Medical Center, 2003 Lincoln Way, Coeur d’Alene. This is the last in a series of five forums for readers to tell Smith what they think of the newspaper. He took over as editor in July.
