THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 9, 1995 TAG: 9504110436
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Medium: 77 lines
More and more Americans hate politics, seeing it mostly as mudslinging and manipulation. Many see government moving further away from citizens. The media often seem to focus on the sensational instead of on things that matter in everyday life. The Virginian-Pilot would like to play a role in turning around that trend. By rethinking the way we write and report stories, the newspaper hopes to do more than deliver frustrating accounts of problems and mayhem; we want to create a conversation about how to make public life better in Hampton Roads.
Editor Cole Campbell elaborates on this experiment in his column on Page A2.
To assess its success, we need your feedback. Tell us whether the questions at the bottom made you think about the issue presented below in a different way - and how.
In next Sunday's Commentary section, we will publish the results of this experiment. MEMO: Send your letters to Dennis Hartig, 150 W. Brambleton Ave., Norfolk,
Va. 23510 Call Infoline at 640-5555, then press 1776
ILLUSTRATION: Graphic and color photo of Sen. John Warner
WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON: Loyalty vs. Independence
THE ISSUE: Republicans are fighting among themselves over the
fitness of U.S. Sen. John W. Warner for renomination by the party in
1996. Warner sparked the fight in 1994 when he refused to back
Oliver L. North, the party's nominee against Sen. Charles S. Robb, a
Democrat. Warner viewed North as unfit to serve in the Senate
because he had lied to Congress during the Iran-Contra
investigation. Warner supported an alternative candidate, and he
defended his action on the grounds of conscience. Warner's
detractors say he cost North the election and betrayed the GOP.
SENATOR WARNER'S VIEW: ``It all comes down to conscience. I was
elected to the Senate to do what I feel is best for the country, the
state, and the perty and I have always put things in that order.'' -
Warner's view of himself.
OTHER CURRENT THINKING: ``We're talking about a very little man,
with very little character who has gone a long way based on money,
marriage and privilege.'' - Peter Flaherty, chairman of the
Conservative Campaign Fund
His refusal to support North ``shows a pattern of behavior, an
arrogance. The man is out of touch. He's been in the Senate for 18
years and doesn't have a lot to show for it.'' - James C. Miller,
Warner's rival for the 1996 nomination
``I am not very happy with what Sen. Warner did, but after
hearing his explanation, I accept it as being genuine. I am going to
remain open-minded.'' - Larry E. Vance, chairman, Shenandoah County
Republican Party
BEFORE RESPONDING, CONSIDER:
How does the debate over Warner connect to me?
- Think about your church or a civic group you belong to. When it
works well, what makes it work?
- Whom do you trust in the organization and why?
- What is the value of an unpopular opinion in your group?
- What is the value of loyalty to the group's goals?
What is missing from the debate over Warner?
- What role should a political party play?
- Think about political leaders you trust. How do they earn it?
- When does party loyalty strength political life?
- When does party loyalty undermine political life?
KEYWORDS: PUBLIC JOURNALISM by CNB