Q: Why do the media believe it is their right to pre-select a field of acceptable candidates for their readership?"
The reason I ask this is that . . . you have published two articles about the decisions of two "candidates" to NOT run. The article about (Mike) Huckabee mentions no fewer than eight other candidates (or non-candidates): Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Daniels, Pawlenty, Palin, Santorum, Trump. The (Donald) Trump piece mentions Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Daniels, Pawlenty,and Huckabee. Missing from the articles are the man who some believe "won" the first debate (Herman Cain), the man who many others believe won that debate(Ron Paul) . . , and a man who has twice the executive experience of Mitt Romney (Gary Johnson, twice elected governor of New Mexico). (A recent) editorial once again omitted Gary Johnson and Ron Paul (it did name-check Herman Cain). This follows a tragic precedent set by the Observer and its affiliated wire services in 2008 to exclude certain candidates from mention in its election coverage. Why are you staggering down the same pathetic path this year?
Hilton Caldwell, Monroe
A: Hilton, I agree that there has been little consistency to this point in our reporting on the potential field of GOP candidates. That's partly because of the uncertainty about who is in and who is out. The Gallup polling organization, in an effort to make sense of this fluid field, has been tracking 15 names. Potential candidates now officially announce or excuse themselves almost daily. But that will change as the field firms up. For now, candidates who have announced and are drawing a following certainly should be acknowledged in coverage. So, I think you make a very good point about Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both of whom have announced they are running. You may have seen that we carried an article about Herman Cain announcing in Atlanta over the weekend. Others who have announced include Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty. I’ve shared your concerns internally with our staff and we will work to provide more complete references to the field of potential candidates. This is an issue that matters a great deal to us. We think voters should decide which candidates are to be taken seriously, not the press, not political parties, not special interests. As the campaign progresses, we will also watch carefully to see which candidates are resonating with voters and which are being generally discounted. It would be unwise to focus on a candidate simply because he or she has gotten on the ballot. If the public has clearly heard a candidate and largely rejected that person, voters are better off if the media uses more of its resources, instead, to cover viable candidates. Thanks for the question.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Reader: Don't pick candidates for us!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Sounds like another right winger is upset his candidate(s) didn't get enough press. The answer is simple. We all know Ron Paul and Herman Cain have as much chance to be president as Santa Claus.
Rick,
You were doing so well...until the last couple of sentences, beginning with "...see which candidates are resonating...". All candidates deserve an equal shot at disseminating their stance and opinions. To filter out some candidates effectively MAKES them un-electable, and their candidacy withers from lack of exposure. As we have seen, some candidacies wither on their own from the glare of the spotlight, and other's shortcomings become painfully obvious. But to select only "those who have the best chance" is patently unfair to all of us. Please be attentive to ALL candidates until they drop out of the race.
you guys are bias...always was and always will be. mmmm, I wonder why your paper doesnt sale..
The Observer recommended Vilma Leake and George Dunlap to the BOCC.
Those two endorsements are proof the Observer doesn't need in the business of endorsing ANY candidates.
Anyone who goes by Observer endorsements deserves who they get if they vote for them.
Often one would think the Observer was an advertising arm of the Democratic Party, as many of the articles written appear to praise the democratic candidate and denounce any others. To continually read the gushing of admiration of local Democrats, ones that have been on the BOCC and City Council that have, in the past, approved items that the citizens of Charlotte-Mecklenburg voted against gives me reason to go to other sources for additional information on any candidate running for local, state, and federal office. Also, the Observer, once a very good investigative paper, does not do much of anything anymore and the public is left wondering just how some of the things that go on in Charlotte-Mecklenburg governments is overlooked by our so-called Television News. It is a shame that the once powerful Charlotte Observer is now a very small reporting agency printing over 95% + of the news obtained from liberal papers like the New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Post and the printing of local concerns are regurgitating of much of the TV News. I really miss the great paper it once was and I really regret it’s demise.
A member of the BOCC once told me he stood no chance to win. Because he had been endorsed by the Big O.
Anyone who would listen to others (esp such a leftist view) as the CO should NOT be voting! But we all know you folks at the CO will always support the left....gotta keep the status quo from finding out they are being played.......
Anonymous 5:24, the question wasn't about endorsing candidates. It was about coverage of candidates. But I can tell you that a steady stream of candidates make their cases to the editorial board. And many who win endorsements, Democrats and Republicans alike, are quick to include them in their campaign advertisements. I watch it happen every election cycle. So if a commissioner, indeed, told you in private (my assumption, since neither you nor the commissioner are identified here) that an endorsement was a handicap, could it be because that's what the commissioner thought you'd would want to hear? Think about it!
Anonymous 8:46, I share your belief that political bias has no place in news stories. So, please, contact me at rthames@charlotteobserver.com when you see examples of this. I've issued this plea before on my blog and the offer still stands. I also agree with you that the Observer should do significant investigative reporting. But I think its recent history is actually an improvement over some periods in its past. What are some of the strong stories from other eras that come to mind for you?
Post a Comment