The political endorsements run on the editorial pages of The Salt Lake Tribune in recent
days have brought red to the eyes of many readers who called or sent e-mail asking who the
hell The Trib thinks it is.
Backing political candidates, indeed. Expressing opinions on voter choices, indeed.
One reader (who describes himself or herself as an “ambivalent product of Utah County”)
took the editorial page to task, writing:
“Could you explain why The Tribune feels the need to tell me who to vote for in the 3rd
District race? If nothing else, this endorsement of [Chris] Cannon is completely useless as
polls and history indicate that he is virtually assured of winning the race anyway. So, in place
of real impact on the outcome of the election, the endorsement seems only to be an insult to
the readers you have — or once had — that looked to The Tribune as the ‘Independent Voice’ in
Utah.
“A few years ago when you began your stream of articles about buyouts, takeovers, and
sealed court documents concerning your sale and problems with Deseret News, I guess I was
under the mistaken impression (picked up from your rhetoric) that this had something to do
with The Tribune maintaining its ‘Independent Voice’ — apparently not. Yes, this e-mail is
hopelessly partisan. However, I don’t think I speak alone as a Tribune reader who used to
cherish the idea that The Tribune stood as some sort of mediating influence and voice in a
state that is dominated by right-wing, anti-environmental, anti-social and anti-intellectual
groupthink.”
Whoa, Nellie, don’t hold back.
The electronic missive, of course, points out the real problem with readers’ views of
editorials endorsing political candidates: If the reader does not agree with the person
endorsed, then they tend to question a newspaper’s policy of endorsing.
The astute reader will note well and long remember that political endorsements are not new
to this or other newspapers in this country. They were revived here at The Tribune after three
decades of being shoved in a darkened closet. And, don’t believe that this revival has come at a
small cost. The editorial board of this newspaper (which is forced to think its lofty thoughts
on the eighth floor of the Tribune building, far away from the newsroom on the second floor)
made heroic sacrifices prior to making election recommendations. They sat through hours of
interviews with political candidates of every ilk.
And, sitting through hours of anything is not an activity most Americans relish.
Then, after hearing the candidates, the editorial board met and talked about the
qualifications of each candidate. (Having sat on editorial boards at several newspapers, I can
tell you this: Those are no sunshine patriots who seriously discuss the worthiness of some
candidates for local, state and federal office. They tempt the wrath of the gods just by trying to
separate the wheat from the chaff.)
Then the board voted on the stands the editorials would take.
One of them was assigned to write each editorial.
And, during the whole process, those board members understood this reality: The goal is to
get people talking about a candidate or a subject. The talk, the buzz, the conversation generated
in a community by a newspaper’s editorial stands is the success of its policy.
Need more reminder about what the importance this freedom of speech thing — and
editorials are the exercise of freedom of speech — is? Then take a moment and muse upon the
words of Patrick Henry in his March 23, 1775, extemporaneous speech before the Assembly
of Virginia in a meeting of the colony’s delegates:
“If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for
which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble
struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never
to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it,
sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But
when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? . . .
“. . . The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. . . .
The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!
Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish?
What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it.
“Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or
give me death!”
_________
The Reader Advocate’s phone number is 801-257-8782. Write to the Reader Advocate, The
Salt Lake Tribune, P.O. Box 867, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110. E-mail:
reader.advocate@sltrib.com.
