In the weeks prior to an election, The San Diego Union-Tribune is especially careful to give candidates balanced coverage. Sometimes, however, the incumbent whether the president, a governor or a district attorney makes headlines just because he or she already holds the office.
Nowhere is it more obvious in San Diego than in the race for district attorney. Four candidates are on the ballot: Lawyer Michael Aguirre; Superior Court Judge Bonnie Dumanis; Deputy District Attorney Mark Pettine, and incumbent Paul Pfingst who is seeking a third term in office. The election is tomorrow.
The Union-Tribune has not made an endorsement but has opted to wait until the general election in November before recommending a candidate, a Feb. 20 editorial said.
But even if an endorsement had been made, it would have been based on the decision of the publisher and editorial board, not the newsroom, which operates independently. In fact, reporters and editors are careful not to let political endorsements affect coverage.
What does influence coverage, however, is the news. And that cannot be helped. Days before the election, the name and face of the incumbent district attorney was not only on the front page of the Union-Tribune but was televised to millions, many of whom don’t know he’s facing an election or don’t care.
He became news because of his role as the county’s lead prosecutor in the Danielle van Dam case. And if journalists wanted to cover the case fully, they had to quote him. He was the source for information. In fact, the incumbent was the one who made the decision to prosecute David Westerfield for murder.
A small photo of the incumbent appeared on the front page Tuesday, the same day his name was in a headline saying he had made a decision to seek a murder charge. Also on the front page above the main headline was a quotation from him saying that he had concluded that “Danielle van Dam is no longer living and was killed by her abductor.” It was the first time someone in authority had said for attribution he believed the child had been killed by her abductor.
Some of the same information appeared in a story the day before, but it was based on an anonymous “law enforcement source close to the investigation,” who told the newspaper that “investigators and prosecutors are of the belief she is dead.” That headline said: “Westerfield likely to face charge of murder.”
Tuesday’s story was based on the incumbent’s confirmation of what the newspaper had learned from the anonymous source and included as did the earlier story that the charge would likely include special circumstances, making the death penalty a possibility if Westerfield is convicted.
Headline writers faced a dilemma. Rather than repeat that Westerfield was being charged with murder, the headline focused on the incumbent’s official announcement that a murder charge would be filed. It was a good call, but wouldn’t it have been more neutral to use the incumbent’s title rather than his name? His decision was the news. Only one reader complained.
Other than that, no other reader, to my knowledge, has accused the newspaper of bias because of its articles highlighting the role of the incumbent in this sad story.
In fact, the incumbent was doing his job, and the newspaper was also doing its job, which is to bring readers the news, regardless of whom it involves and whether there is an election pending.
And as ombudsman Mike Needs of The Beacon Journal in Akron, Ohio, pointed out: “The political advantage of incumbent officeholders in high profile cases has two edges to it. They get very visible credit for some things, sometimes undeserved, and equally visible blame for other things, also often undeserved.”
Dan Hortsch, ombudsman for The Oregonian in Portland, called the extra coverage “the age-old benefit of incumbency.” He cautioned that it is up to newspapers not to let the candidate take advantage of the situation. “Put the focus on the victim and the suspect. And on the process,” Hortsch said.
“Skilled reporters should be able to distinguish between legitimate news and raw grandstanding,” said Doug Floyd, ombudsman for The Spokesman Review in Spokane, Wash. “I’ve never thought the newspaper was obliged to give all the potential rivals an equal forum unless what they have to say passes the same newsworthiness test.”
Floyd also said he’s never known of a political challenger “who demanded equal treatment when the incumbent’s deficiencies were being exposed.”
Lillian Swanson, ombudsman for The Philadelphia Inquirer, pointed out that the district attorney there is “always in the news, election or not.”
While not forgetting that an election was pending, editors at the Union-Tribune were wise not to let politics get in the way of reporting the Danielle van Dam story as fully as possible.
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619) 293-1525. Send e-mail to:
readers.rep@uniontrib.com.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
——————————————————————————–
