Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, November 6, 1994 TAG: 9411090022
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ALAN SORENSEN EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
I say "so-called" because a newspaper's endorsements are not necessarily the newspaper's, and not necessarily endorsements.
Let me explain.
I have a sneaking suspicion that not everyone who works at the newspaper may agree with all our election editorials. Endorsements, some colleagues may hasten to remind family and friends, represent the newspaper's institutional view only in that they reflect the opinions of the editorial board, which the publisher heads.
They certainly don't reflect on news coverage, which is separate from editorial policy.
All of which is equally true, of course, of editorials on other subjects.
As for when endorsements aren't endorsements - they usually aren't, if by that we mean some sort of Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
Endorsement editorials don't signify that we regard a politician as perfection personified. They simply argue the case for voting one way over another.
How could you endorse so-and-so, you might ask? We might answer: We didn't endorse him; we defended a preference for his election, given the alternative.
Three ways in which we do not arrive at endorsement decisions:
We don't consult the Satan worshipers' voters guide.
Before we write these things, we invite candidates in to talk. In most cases, state and local, they meet with us. We also consider their records (preferably of the voting rather than the criminal variety), their convictions (you get the idea), their accomplishments, positions on issues, and anything else possibly relevant, from evidence of disdain for the Constitution to a weakness for drug parties and back rubs.
It should not surprise that we tend to favor candidates whose stances on issues are closer to views we've expressed all year in other editorials.
We don't base endorsements on majority sentiment or likely election outcomes. If we did, that wouldn't be expressing an opinion; it would be repeating a poll result. We argue what we believe is right.
We don't endorse on partisan grounds. We don't consider ourselves a Democratic or Republican editorial page.
We may harbor a bit of bias in favor of incumbents, if we think they're doing a good job. But we try to assess each candidate on individual merits. If Oliver North were a Democrat and Charles Robb a Republican, that wouldn't affect our opinion of either.
In the past we've recommended votes for candidates from both parties - in some elections in recent years, for more Republicans than Democrats. But we are constrained in our choices - just as all Virginians are - by the nominees whom the parties produce.
A couple of weeks ago, Sen. John Warner, former Gov. Linwood Holton and former U.S. Rep. Caldwell Butler paid us separate visits. I can't imagine this newspaper having trouble endorsing any of them for any office, depending on their opposition.
But they aren't running this year. Nor are they running the Republican Party in Virginia nowadays. A different group is in, a group enamored with a candidate whose platform is a pile of resentments, and whose felony convictions were overturned because of Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
I don't see how anyone can be accused of reflexive partisanship by agreeing with what the Reagans, George Will, James Webb, Lawrence Eagleburger and John Warner have said about North. If they're part of a liberal conspiracy, I don't know what liberal means.
The editorial conspirators, before we write the election pieces, meet with the publisher. He has the final say. But if the board is sharply divided, or too few of us can muster any enthusiasm or even a strong preference, as a rule we won't endorse in a race.
We strive to reach consensus, though, because elections are important decisions, and some choice has to be made.
Election opinions seem to me a natural part of the editorializing we do year-round. It would be strange to pass judgment on everything else under the sun while punting on the choices most fundamental to democracy - especially when we routinely urge voters to get to the polling places.
Also as with other editorials, they are only that - editorials. "Endorsement" seems an officious, presumptuous word. In fact, we aren't trying to dictate to anyone how he or she must think or vote.
We are merely offering an opinion. We are adding one voice, a few points to consider, to the public conversation - on pages providing a forum for a wide range of views.
I have no doubt that readers consider or reject, read or don't read, our arguments as they like, and come to their own conclusions.
One of my firmest beliefs is that no one enjoys a monopoly on the truth. For all I know, every one of our editorial positions may be disastrously wrong, patently ridiculous. We may have been unfair. Some of our readers think so.
One of my hopes, in addition to the desire for this strange election season finally to end, is that we don't take ourselves too seriously.
What we on the editorial page should and do take seriously is its purpose, which is not merely to provide a mouthpiece for our view.
It is meant rather as a means for reasonable dialogue, for debating all manner of opinions, especially those with which we might disagree. This is why, for example, when selecting letters to publish, we've given priority to those favoring North's candidacy.
Do endorsements carry any influence? Not much, I imagine. We're aiming as much to provoke discussion as to persuade anyone.
I do know of one reader who uses them as a guide. In a recent letter to the editor, Mickey Mixon of Roanoke wrote: "What is the easiest way to decide whom to vote for? Just watch which candidate this newspaper endorses and vote for the opposite."
by CNB