The Virginian-Pilot
For anyone keeping score, Al Gore and Kerry ended what was a perfect record. That's now a footnote in our newspaper's history.
As we ready endorsements for the General Assembly elections, this seemed like the right time to announce the end of The Virginian-Pilot's presidential endorsements. Since the 2004 elections, we have been debating their worth and justification.
Nothing we do is more controversial than endorsing candidates, and so we must be able to argue from intimate knowledge, knowing the context and history, and with an understanding of the specific concerns of our neighborhoods.
A good editorial serves the public by advancing the conversation with new reasoning, information or a fresh point of view. We can meet that test for our local and state endorsements, but we recognize that the argument falters for the presidential contests.
It's our right, of course, to express an opinion about who should lead the nation. Some would say it's our duty. But presidential elections are not our beat. Our time is best spent on local and state problems, or those national ones that bear directly on us.
It would be different if we covered the presidential candidates, or had the access we do to local and state political leaders. Everyone can read the same news wires we do, access the same archives and do the same kind of political research, thanks to the Internet. Add the 24-hour news channels and talk radio, and it's never been easier for Americans to get the scoop on presidential contenders and to draw their own conclusions.
Therefore, we're making a choice to concentrate on crafting opinions about the leadership of our cities, our state and the people we send to Congress. We make no secret of our bias for candidates who fit the pragmatic, good government philosophy of our page. We favor those people who can get something done and don't waste time trying to score political points.
Endorsements are like a job search for candidates who fill that bill. They are not predictions; they are simply the best cases we can make for the best candidates.
That's the reason we endorse, and why our pages are open for you to do the same.
To our minds, prior experience counts and gives incumbents an edge. Experience is an asset. When candidates come to make their case, they are asked to tell us why they should be hired. Challengers must explain what the incumbent has done to deserve being fired. We've spent about 30 hours in interviews getting these questions answered by General Assembly candidates in the Nov. 6 election.
The endorsements that result reflect the consensus of the editorial board and the publisher, but not - of course - the news department. The news department is kept entirely out of the endorsement process.
Nothing is more important to the progress of our communities than good leaders. And nothing is more important to picking good leaders than good information. Good information - the best judgment that we can provide - is the simple and sole mission of this page.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
It's About Money
What is missing here is the real reason why you have made this choice. It has nothing to do with not being "your beat" (each candidate's decisions will impact H.Roads differently). What this is about is money. You folks are doing everything you can to save your journalistic hides. As seen in the comments posted here, many readers generally disdain the press, including those who have bought the line from the radical right that the press is "liberal". What better way to address this perceived bias than by having no opinion at all in the one election that matters most. For some reason, I tend to think that even this move won't persuade conservatives to subscribe. So what have you gained in the process? A less thoughtful citizenry.
Fair and Balanced
With ABC, NBC and Fox having a pro GOP slant and featuring reporters such as Sean Hannity, former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, Diane Sawyer from Dick Nixon's staff and Andrea Mitchell, wife of Republican economic guru Greenspan, it is nice to have an alternative view to a partisan national media. Plese remember that these are the folks that gave us the Clinton Impeachment, the adjustment of the 2000 Presidential Election results and the Iraq War. Since most of the national media will line up behind the GOP nominee in 2008, isn't there some way the Virginian Pilot can give us both sides of the Presidential election story and not just reprint pro Republican media releases from the mainstream national press ?
Pilot endorsements
The ability of the Virginian Pilot to predict anything is in question. Their weather predicting ability certainly comes from a chrystal ball, as do their slanted political stories. Why not stick to what news papers are designed for, like reporting the news, not inserting personal opinions from the reporter. I am educated enough to make my own opinions based on facts, something that the Pilot editors are devoid of.
Whoop-tee-doo
The Pilot op-ed board editors are not qualified to "endorse" anyone. No one cares about your biased liberal opinions.
You are abandoning your unique role in our society
This is a terrible time in our nation's history for a newspaper to be shirking it's leadership role in our community. The rise of the Internet has flooded us with information and disinformation meant to confuse us. Simple minds, more than ever, seek black-and-white, yes-or-no answers to every problem, and right wing extremists have been happy to comply. Newspapers should be the voice of reason during periods like this of great transition and upheavel. When they crawl into a hole to avoid criticism and protect their circulation they are being cowards. Your critics don't want you to be unbiased. They want you to agree with their opinion or be quiet. Apparently you have decided to be quiet. Rush Limbaugh and his mob of fools thanks you.
It all comes down to one
When a newspaper endorses anything, it all comes dopwn to one person. Why would anyone believe a single person and the best choice. The paper shows its' true c olors well before any cow chip endorsement. Those that need the endorsement should not be allowed to vote if they cannot make up their own minds and must follow the owner of a newspaper, because in the end if the owner will only allow the newspaper to endorse someone they like.
I agree-keep it unbiased.
I agree with a previous poster with the idea to only post the facts about each candidate in a special edition run the week before the election. Let that information stand as is and allow the general populace makes its own decisions without having to search all over kingdom come to find it independently. News sources were always supposed to be unbiased unless an editorial piece. I remember that from my high school newspaper days--they wouldn't run an "opinion" piece because it was too biased. I'm also glad your company has decided to not endorse a candidate because you KNOW not all your employees agree with that endorsement. It's nice to know they won't be lumped together with yet another far-left liberal paper.
We don't need it, we already know!
By election time, we the people already know who the Pilot is endorsing. Newspapers have every right to let us know, but the Pilot knows that they will continue to endorse the more liberal candidates. That is ok, but not if they start losing readers. Many of the toothless, gun toting, unenlightened folks like me will get increasingly less of our "news" from the Pilot. We will use other media sources. It is a good business decision, and as a capitalist I applaud it! The Pilot would have endorsed Clinton or Obama this time around, so I would have just ruined for you guys anyway! Unless the Pilot is going to endorse Ron Paul, I don't care to read their choice. That, of course, is selfish of me, I know.
An Unbiased Edition
How about a special edition, or special section, with all the facts in it. Cover all upcoming elections from both sides, and just report the facts - all the facts. Verify the information so that it is accurate. You may even want to ask the candidates to check it. Print this section about a week or two before every major elections. Take it a step further. We know that a lot of TV ads only give us part of a story. They like to take words out of context. Give all candidates a chance to correct the false ads, and then verify that their correction is truthful. Wow, that in itself would take a whole special edition!
Good start.
Good start. Now how about just reporting all sides of any news and let us seperate the fact from fiction. Let us decide for ourselves the right from left, good from bad, truth from lies, etc. You just present the facts, (when you actually have all the facts).... all the facts. Your paper and the majority of newspapers and radio/t.v. over the past 20 years have been so onesided that I at times find it hard to believe we are both living on the same planet. You have the rights to fredom of the press just print it all and we will figure it out without your help. If you need to hire some reporters that can report without bias I suggest you begin to clean house at the Pilot.
Amazing
The pilot should not endorse ANY candidate. They should remain unbiased and report the same way. But i doubt that will ever happen.
Newspapers r suppose to give independent news
Endorsements Unnecessary
The Pilot editorial staff does not need to endorse any candidate for any office. They make it perfectly clear on a daily basis whom they support, and whom they don't.
Lack of fortitude?
I agree with several of the previous expressed opinions regarding this story, particularly Charter Wells, Jr. and Rick Fletcher.
Editorial opinion is, in my opinion, a sacred trust, a foundational aspect of newspapers in our nation, from the very beginning. To drop this trust is to "drop the ball" and shirk editorial duties.
We the readers need not agree, but we do like to think, at least many of us do, and to be presented even with an opposing view to our own is valuable.
Shocked
I am amazed - shocked, really - that the Pilot is turning down an opportunity to have the words Hillary Clinton appear in the paper again. Or were you going to endorse Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson?
How about you not endorse any political candidates
If people are going to rely on an editorial to make up their mind for them, then they are too stupid to vote. Let them stay at home and wallow in their indecision.
Maintain your objectivity and stay away from opinion.
Small Town Newspaper?
Yours is a decision one could expect, or even invite, of a small town, small circulation newspaper. However, the last time I checked, The Virginian Pilot is neither. Refusal to endorse a candidate reflects a want of intestinal fortitude, not an absence of bias. Your points of view, as those of any newspaper, is unavoidably reflected in that which you choose to publish.
If only the negative media influences would agree to do the sa
The newspaper having an opinion prevents no one from making up their own, small mind. And no one will believe the newspaper doesn't have an opinion simply because it doesn't print one. You have done nothing to appease the critics who are still ranting here. They will continue to form their opinions based on party affiliation, negative campaign ads, the Fox network and a daily dose of Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter. In a world filled with that kind of media, it's hard to see how any newspaper with backbone can surrender its role as an objective opinion leader. You should sell the newspaper to real journalists. I agree with a previous poster - this is about circulation, not principle - and it makes the paper less useful and relevant to me.
So keep quiet
So since you typically endorse the wrong candidate, with your spin towards the left, not the facts, you decide to shut up and let the people decide what is best. About time.
Just Report
I personally think the "Newspaper" has no business endorsing any candidate for anything. Just report the news. Your columnists can support and endorse but I don't think the paper should endorse anything.