THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 3, 1996 TAG: 9611020001
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: 93 lines
Glance to your left and you'll see, on the editorial page, an endorsement for president of the United States. It's the last in a series that began Thursday, leading up to Tuesday's elections.
These endorsements have taken a stand on the five proposed amendments to the Virginia Constitution, the Virginia Beach referendum on a redevelopment and housing authority, the four congressional races, the two Senate candidates and, today, the choice between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.
But just who makes those endorsements - the entire newspaper staff? A select few? And what are their criteria?
Those questions were put to me Thursday by Wally Erb of Virginia Beach, who is active in local civic leagues. ``I'm just trying to figure out how these opinions are formulated,'' he said.
Another woman objected outright to one of the endorsements. ``You shouldn't have told people how to vote,'' she said. ``You should have given both sides of an argument so people could decide what they thought was best for them and how they wanted to vote.''
This is a timely issue and deserves some attention. If you've run through this before, well, skip on to the next item.
Quite simply, each endorsement is a consensus view of six people: the newspaper's publisher, editorial page editor and four editorial writers. It is the voice of the newspaper as an editorial institution - not the opinion of the Pilot's news editors, writers or the folks who deliver the paper to your door.
First, the editorial board arrived at a list of issues it deemed important, topped by the budget, entitlements and defense. Then it considered where candidates stood on those issues.
``No, we're not a Republican newspaper and we're not a Democratic newspaper,'' said editorial page editor Keith Monroe. ``We consider each candidate on the merits.''
Same goes for the amendments and other election choices. Of course, Monroe concedes that the board members go into their decision-making with some ``philosophical baggage.'' For example, he said, ``we don't subscribe to supply-side economics. So candidates who believe in that will have a hard time winning our endorsement.''
Why endorse anyone? As Monroe explained back in March, ``It's part of the editorial board's job to know the candidates, perhaps better than the average voter can. In a sense, we conduct job interviews with them.''
In fact, the board interviewed each candidate in the three contested congressional races and the two Warners running for U.S. Senate.
Besides, the editorial writers speak out on issues every day of the year. ``It would be odd if we didn't take a stand on who's going to take a seat in Congress,'' Monroe said. Or in the Oval Office.
But Monroe encourages readers to see the endorsements as a starting point. ``We hope they're rational, considered opinions,'' he said. ``But you don't have to agree with us. At a minimum, we hope they'll provoke counter-opinion. This is a community forum we're running here.''
And if you still object to endorsements, just ignore them and peruse the candidates' stands as reported in the news sections of the paper and, last Sunday, in the Voter Guide.
Legible mutual funds. For months readers have complained about the illegibility of the mutual funds listing in the BusinessNews section. And, indeed, it was hard to read. The lines of tiny agate type ran so close together that sometimes one set of numbers was on top of another.
The biz folks promised to fix this and, indeed, they have. So how come I haven't heard a word from readers? Maybe you gave up already and hadn't noticed. If so, come back and see the new improved type. It's still small, of course, but it's readable.
Word of the fix came from Nelson Brown, who is deputy managing editor for presentation. He said they gained space by dropping 500 funds that were the smallest in terms of assets. I got only one call from a reader who wanted one of these restored, and it was. Business sections editor Wade Wilson said he's gotten a few grumbles about missing stocks.
Keep in mind that this change on the mutuals is just temporary. A whole redesign of the market pages is in the works. I've seen some of the mockups and they look really good - more information in a better layout. That improvement should come by early next year.
``Gnats on an elephant.'' That's what newspaper buff Lorraine Smith of Portsmouth calls those small but nasty errors that she spots in the newspaper.
Indeed, scarcely a day goes by when a reader doesn't notice them. Last week, it was a caption that referred to an ROTC exercise - students using map and compass to find their way through the woods - as ``orientation.'' The correct word is ``orienteering.''
This week, we were scolded for a reference to a ``sewage plant'' in a headline. No, said one reader. Sewage is the stuff that travels through ``sewerage,'' which is the plumbing in a treatment plant.
The gnat with the biggest sting, however, was on a letter to the editor headlined ``Constitution flaunted.'' Mea culpa. It should have been ``Constitution flouted.''
At least it gave one reader the chance to put in a good word for the Constitution. Wrote Leigh Alan Dyer of Norfolk: ``Indeed, as an inspiration to freedom-loving people everywhere, it should be flaunted, and proudly.'' by CNB