September 12, 2004
A Word About The Process Of Candidate Endorsements
Why We Don't Do Interviews
In the wake of our primary endorsements, one local candidate asked us why we had not conducted an endorsement interview with him. At the time, our response was fairly simple: We didn't conduct endorsement interviews with anyone.
(We did, earlier on in the primary campaign season, and not in the context of our endorsement process, interview one of the Mayoral candidates by email, with the plan to do the same for several of the other candidates. Being fairly early on in our campaign coverage, before we were as familiar to local political figures as we are today, none of the others we had contacted responded to us, and so we simply moved on and left the idea behind.)
To be honest, we aren't at all comfortable with the interview process. Being a creature of the written word, we prefer being able to take the time necessary to sit, think, and analyze. We also don't possess what we'll term the in-person strength-of-self to make an interview with a politician an even playing field. So interviews simply aren't a regular part of our standard repertoire.
Upon reading today's Public Editor column, in which Michael Arrieta-Walden explains the endorsement process at The Oregonian, we've found a perhaps deeper reason why endorsement interviews would be a somewhat superfluous use of our time and energy.
Unlike what we suspect to be the case for many editorial boards, we spend a rather inordinate amount of time having direct exposure to the candidates and their campaigns, by attending forums, debates, and other appearances all over Portland, throughout the election cycle. By the time endorsements must be made, we know full well just what the candidates have to say. Especially given our weaknesses as described above, what would be gained from an endorsement interview beyond the opportunity for candidates to take advantage of those weaknesses and present us with likely-unchallenged spin?
None of this is meant to disparage the processes utilized by editorial boards such as that at The Oregonian. Each outlet and media form has its own procedure, constructed in ways that seem to them to be the most appropriate for them.
As much as possible, our endorsements are based upon an extended first-hand exposure directly to how the candidates perform on the campaign trail itself, supplemented by our second-hand reading and viewing of campaign coverage from elsewhere. That experience, when combined with the fact that interviews are a poor fit for our skill set and personality, offers the real reason why candidate interviews are not part of our own endorsement process.
Comments (8)
Brian Smith on 13 Sep 2004
Well I think your still missing one of the point that I was trying to make.
What happens when the local media print and TV fail to even give the public a view of all the candidates? What happens when the public are given candidates and the only information given to them is a bunch of rhetoric with a lot of open statements about schools and jobs.
As in TV media, they originally we're licenced the airwaves for relatively free on the premise of servicing the public interest.
I interviewed with the Oregonian and WW, neither of which even mentioned my name. Yet they did numerous articles complaining about lack of new ideas on issues of either leading candidates in my race.
Biggest comment I got at debates if I was even invited to them was "How come I've never heard of you in the papers".
An educated public should be able to decide for themselves if they are given all the options. Which print and TV media are failing to do.
A growing number of people see this in national/world news coverage but it's also happening in good ol' liberal Portland.
I got 1747 votes on $25. 4th out of 7 isn't bad and I totally called it that Newell was a Republician running as a Democrat. Which nobody in the media could even get.
The One True b!X on 13 Sep 2004
You weren't the candidate I was referring to, actually. Heh.
Brian Smith on 13 Sep 2004
Well, it was a question I asked you and a few different media outlets and groups. So I deducted that it did reference me and an issue I feel strongly about in local and national politics.
A simple question asked not only for my vote but for the public as a whole. Why groups gave endorsements without even considering the other candidates and on what specific issues. Which is kind of ridulous when compared with the amount of coverage on campaign finance.
Without any sort of equal coverage quota in media for public interest, campaign finance reform falls short because big money candidates will simply find ways around it. Just like the tax laws.
So are you simply providing an alternative to mainstream press or just echoing what they decide to cover in elections? I'm not just speaking for myself but I believe for most of the other candidates in the primary election.
What I saw was a lot of complaining about the need for campaign finance reform and a total lack of coverage on issues and candidates in the election. Seriously WW put Extremo the Clown on the cover and didn't even mention candidates actually going to debates. Does that make voting a joke or give the public a reason to even vote? I think the voter turnout in the primary is proof of that, where NOT EVEN HALF of the REGISTERED VOTERS voted.
These are my opinions on lack of public interest reporting in mainstream media. Back to my continued unpaid work in social justice and education.
cab on 13 Sep 2004
Hey Not fair. I voted for Extremo the clown :0
I think WW's point was Extremo at least knew he was just a clown. You have to be clown to run for office in this system.
Randy Leonard on 13 Sep 2004
You have to be clown to run for office in this system.
Maybe... but I believe most who run really believe they can make the system (Portland-Oregon-US) better....
Jeff on 14 Sep 2004
I think there's a lot of value in having a candidate interview. People behave differently in private conference than they do when they're in front of a crowd. Kevin Drum pointed out today that using character as one element in deciding which candidate is best is a good one. It's not the easy decisions that we care about, it's the hard ones, when the unexpected happens and the candidate is on the spot. That's where character comes in.
It may be wrong, but I feel far different when I'm sitting down with someone, we're looking each other in the eye. It's a different person than the person who plays for a crowd, and it's worth getting that view. Given your enormous influence over voter decisions, I say fire up the editorial board. A board of one.
The One True b!X on 14 Sep 2004
Yes, well, as I said additionally, however, my comfort-level with extended one-on-one, in -person conversations is as close to zero as you can get without actually being zero.
Jeff on 15 Sep 2004
Fair enough.