Last Sunday’s Voter Guide mostly garnered reader praise, but it got mixed or negative reviews in some quarters.
The 12-page guide detailed “the views of the candidates about themselves and issues critical to the state,” to quote the cover. There was information about the gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidates, the attorney general candidates, as well as those in races for the House of Delegates and constitutional offices.
The guide noted that the Libertarian Party’s candidates for governor and lieutenant governor (William Redpath and Gary Reams, respectively) were “on the ballot,” but the guide contained no information about them.
That displeased some readers, including one who noted: “How about next time you actually take a few minutes to voice their stand on the issues!”
“You should be ashamed of yourselves,” said another reader, who said the paper “cannot be trusted to further the cause of democracy.”
“I would think a paper truly dedicated to diversity would feel obligated to report all political candidates without bias,” said another reader. “Obviously not.”
I presented these complaints to Bill Bartel, whose Public Life Team handles political coverage.
“We chose to focus most of our finite resources on providing substantial coverage of the major-party candidates,” Bartel said.
“According to polls, the two Libertarian candidates enjoyed less than 5 percent of popular support. Given that, we tailored our coverage accordingly. We covered their filings for office and we wrote in-depth profiles of each candidate. The profiles gave our readers a measure of each individual’s character, his campaign and the issues important to him.”
If polls had indicated that the Libertarian candidates were gaining ground, “we likely would have increased our coverage,” Bartel said. “The groundswell of support never emerged.”
Redpath eventually received 0.77 percent of the vote, while Reams collected 1.56 percent, according to the state’s unofficial vote tally.
Bartel knows that his explanation isn’t likely to satisfy Libertarians, who have been known to argue that increased coverage would spark voter interest, yield a bigger turnout and increase their numbers.
I’m inclined to agree with them on those points. But Bartel is correct when says that “editing is about making choices.” Faced with limited resources, the media is more apt to go with the major parties. When third parties gain an appreciable following, they usually gain increased media attention. As was the case with Ross Perot and the Reform Party.
Where credit is due: Richard Peltier told the harrowing story of the Sept. 2 shark-attack death of his 10-year-old son, David, in Sandbridge on the television program “Inside Edition” on Nov. 1.
The Pilot related Peltier’s story Nov. 2: “Dad recounts violent moments of son’s attack by a bull shark: Story of boy’s death told for the first time on `Inside Edition.’ ”
Bonn Garrett, editor of HR Hampton Roads Monthly, e-mailed us to say the part about Peltier telling his story for the first time was incorrect.
Actually, Peltier told his story to Garrett’s magazine two months ago. Free-lance writer Jane Harper’s interview with Peltier (“Nightmare in Sandbridge”) is featured in the publication’s November issue, which hit newsstands more than two weeks ago.
“It’s kind of a touchy issue,” said Garrett, “but it would have been nice to have had some credit there. . . . You know, giving credit where credit is due.”
The story and the subhead would have been correct if they had said Peltier told his story nationally for the first time.
All bad? Some Portsmouth readers frequently tell us The Pilot “has it in for” their city. They constantly scrutinize our reporting and headlines for possible bias.
A headline Tuesday may have provided more ammunition for allegations of bias.
The headline (“600f new Portsmouth teachers lack license: Split board blames effort, low salaries”) misstated the problem.
Staff writer Alice Warchol’s story said: “Sixty percent of new public school teachers hired this fall lack full (italics mine) licenses. . . .” Big difference. Which explains why Portsmouth School Board Chairman Ray A. Smith Sr. called to complain.
Lorraine Eaton, the paper’s education editor, explains the distinction:
“In Virginia, teachers may be hired with credentials other than a full license, such as provisional or conditional licenses. This means that they have completed some, but not all, of their teacher training course work to become fully licensed in Virginia and/or have yet to pass the Praxis teacher exam. Out-of-state teachers often have these types of licenses as they align their qualifications with Virginia’s requirements. These licenses are good for three years. This is the type of license that many of the newly hired teachers in Portsmouth hold.”
Full licensure means that the teacher has completed all the requirements to be fully licensed in Virginia, and holds the license, Eaton said.
No license would indicate no teacher training at all. That would violate state law.
“I think that our headline indicated that the new hires fell into this category,” Eaton said.
