THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, June 15, 1996 TAG: 9606150001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A11 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: OPINION
SOURCE: KERRY DOUGHERTY
LENGTH: 82 lines
I'm being driven crazy by a sound inside my head, like the ominous dum-dum, dum-dum theme from ``Jaws.''
I hear it when I read anything about the upcoming U.S. Senate elections.
Lurking in every news report about the Virginia Senate race is a great dark line ready to lunge out of the deep and bite me: John Warner and Mark Warner are not related.
Or: Mark Warner and John Warner are not related.
Or: The Warners are not related.
Or: The two Warners are not related.
Or: Telecommunications mogul Mark Warner, who is no relation to Sen. John Warner.
Or: . . . said Sen. John Warner, to whom Mark Warner is not related.
Did anyone out there ever actually think these two guys were related? I mean, just look at them. Mark Warner has bigger teeth. John Warner has bigger hair.
Are good Virginians fretting over the breakfast table with conundrums like: ``Gosh darn it, Honey, I just don't know which of the Warner brothers I'll vote for in November.''
Or ``Sheesh, Fred, I don't know whether to vote for conservative John Warner or his liberal son, Mark Warner.''
On Tuesday night, while watching the election returns on TV I heard the faint dum-dum, dum-dum theme playing. But the talking heads managed to get through all three minutes they dedicated to the election (including corny jokes about ``one thing's for certain: The winner in November will be a Warner'') without once mentioning that the two candidates are not related.
Suddenly, the anchorwoman flashed her smile at the camera.
``I suppose we should tell everyone that John Warner and Mark Warner are not related.''
No, I don't think you should. We already know. And even if they were related, what difference would it make?
Ask any news type about why they keep repeating this inanity and they'll puff up their chests and tell you it's because ``every news story should stand on its own.''
But, of course, that's not exactly true. They mention that both of the unrelated Warners are running for U.S. Senate without ever once reminding readers that the U.S. Senate is the upper house of the U.S. legislature. Or that the legislature is composed of two houses, the other being the U.S. House of Representatives. Or that Congress is located in Washington, D.C.
That's because newsfolks assume everyone knows what the U.S. Senate is and where it meets.
Well, I've got news for them: We all know, too, that the Warners are unrelated, so give it a rest.
Furthermore, someone should remind reporters and editors that there is a newsprint crisis. Every time this little line is printed, a tree in Canada must fall. The two unrelated Warners many be responsible for the deforestation of the Laurentians before this is all over.
I don't know what can be done about this. The election campaign is barely under way and many of us are wearily contemplating how many more times we will read that the Warners are unrelated.
It must stop.
I urge all news-gathering organizations, including my own, to quit underestimating the intelligence of the voters. We may not be sure about many things, like whom we're going to vote for and whether the Lake Gaston pipeline will ever be finished. But we do know one thing for sure: John Warner and Mark Warner are not related.
Warner is a relatively common name. In fact, 96 Warners are listed in the South Hampton Roads phone book. Hundreds, if not thousands, more of them are scattered around the state. Some are related, some are not. Mark and John are not related. If their common last name was Warpinski - there is only one family with that surname in the book - it would make sense to point out that two men with such an uncommon name are running for the same office and are not related.
This obsession with the unrelatedness of the Warners is giving folks with the John Warner campaign the opportunity to joke that John wishes he were related to Mark. After all, Mark is worth about $100 million and John would be a poor relation with his measly $5 or so million.
But they're not related.
If they were, if, say, the Warners were second cousins, father and son or twins separated at birth, that would be worth mentioning.
Every single time. MEMO: Ms. Dougherty is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot. by CNB