THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 13, 1994 TAG: 9411110032
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Long : 104 lines
The midterm elections ended Tuesday, but readers continued to cast their ballots on the newspaper's coverage. And they had plenty to say on everything from political endorsements to plastic bags.
Even Wednesday morning's headline caused a flap: ``ROBB WINS MUDSLIDE; GOP SEIZES CONGRESS.''
More than a half-dozen callers objected to the ``mudslide'' reference - understandably, since Chuck Robb's victory was hardly a landslide. Besides, the story did not really dredge up the mud-slinging notoriety of the race.
``It does a disservice to all of us,'' said Ellis W. James of Norfolk of the ``mudslide'' ref-er-ence.
``It doesn't bring Virginians together,'' he said ``. . . It's a slap in the face at a time when we need to lower the rhetoric and work together to solve our common problems.''
Robert Reimer of Suffolk had a different objection. He thought the Republican victory in Congress was more important than Robb's narrow win and should have been the main headline.
For a morning-after headline in Virginia, where Robb and North have dominated the news for months, I found it perfectly appropriate to lead with the Senate outcome - though I too could have lived without the ``mudslide.''
But Reimer would have been happier with the Ledger-Star's Wednesday afternoon banner: ``THE GOP TAKES CHARGE.''
Extra good. There were few challenges to the accuracy of Wednesday's day-after political report, which is a tribute to the reporters, editors, photographers and many others who worked on the brink of deadline to get the latest election news in print. And, believe me, it gets manic on an election night.
A number of readers praised the paper for its Election Extra section, which wrapped around the A section on Tuesday, Election Day.
Election Extra had brief reviews on the three Senate candidates and the constitutional amendments, maps of the congressional districts and other voter information.
``It is so good,'' said Helen Shropshire of Virginia Beach. ``It is extra, extra good.''
But even that ``extra, extra good section'' had its down side. Timing was the problem.
Ledger subscribers like Rodney A. Diehl of Virginia Beach didn't get it until late afternoon, about an hour before the polls closed.
``It would have been better to service your Ledger readers Monday evening,'' said Diehl. Getting it Tuesday evening, he said, was ``a day late and a dollar short.''
North poll. A number of North supporters called in to blame their candidate's political demise at least in part on the newspaper.
``You guys are too biased,'' said David Sterago of Virginia Beach. ``I knew what you were going to say every day. You had your agenda and you went with it.''
He cited the headline on Wednesday's front page, ``Character issue hurt North. . . '' Of course it hurt North, said Sterago. ``Everybody has character flaws but you were always pointing them out without telling the whole story.''
There's no doubt the Pilot and Ledger dogged the issue of North's veracity. Over the months, that included a detailed front-page examination of whether he embroidered a family anecdote and analyses of his Iran-Contra past.
On the other hand, the paper hardly doted on Chuck Robb, contrasting his stolid campaign style with North's charismatic appeal and reminding readers of the sex and drug allegations that haunted Robb in the '80s.
But I can think of only one Robb story that got the sort of designer pizzazz that North's ``exposes'' got, and that was when Robb made his ``starving widows and children'' gaffe.
As for Marshall Coleman - well, as his supporters often reminded us, he was sometimes the invisible man on our political pages.
Readers were bothered by these perceived biases. ``The media pounded on North too much and not enough on Robb,'' said Cynthia White of Chesapeake who, when she called Monday, was still an undecided voter.
But, unlike Sterago, she felt the Pilot was pretty fair. Mostly, she's glad the election is over.
Red, white and blue baggie. The biggest controversy of the week involved plastic bags. Yes, plastic bags. It came up last Sunday, when 48,000 subscribers in Chesapeake and Suffolk went to retrieve their newspapers.
While other subscribers got papers in the usual clear-plastic bag, those in the 4th Congressional District got red, white and blue wrappers proclaiming: ``GEORGE SWEET, U.S. CONGRESS.''
Nearly 200 of those subscribers made it clear they disapproved of wrapping the newspaper in a political advertisement, especially two days before the election.
``It was ill-informed of the paper, even for advertising purposes, to put an endorsement on your wrapper,'' said Camille Gendell of Chesapeake.
Like many callers, Gendell interpreted the paid ad as editorial backing by the newspaper. (It wasn't, but it sure looked like it.)
Nor were most callers assuaged by a front-page note saying, ``The delivery in this bag does not indicate any special relationship with or endorsement of that candidate by the newspaper.''
Many readers probably didn't see the note, said William R. Clements of Chesapeake, who also called the bag ``an inherent endorsement'' and added, ``I don't particularly appreciate it.''
He might, however, appreciate the papers' new ad policy. Said advertising director Joe Antle: ``We will no longer accept political advertising or otherwise controversial advertising on the delivery bags.''
MEMO: Call the public editor at 446-2475, or send a computer message to
lynn(AT)infi.net. by CNB