Search for new and used cars from NH dealers.
web feeds

Mobile

Oct252008

Some readers upset over our endorsement

Filed under Uncategorized by nick pappas at 8:29 pm

Uh-oh. We did it again.

In this case, it refers to endorsing a candidate in the upcoming election – today incumbent John E. Sununu for the U.S. Senate seat – something newspapers have done pretty much since their inception back in the 1700s.

But a not-so-funny thing happened after we endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president last week in The Sunday Telegraph.

By the end of the week, more than a dozen readers called to cancel their subscriptions, while others took advantage of our online comment option to criticize the newspaper for using its Opinion pages to, well, offer its opinion.

“The Telegraph just lost my viewership,” “Jason” wrote online, one of more than 200 comments posted at the bottom of the editorial. “How about providing the news and not a group opinion. The opinion section is for individual writers. Good to know where you stand. After six years of getting your news, I just stopped reading your paper as of today. Idiots!”

As for our former subscribers, most said they were canceling their subscriptions because we decided to endorse a candidate – any candidate – in the upcoming presidential election. A smaller number said they were canceling specifically because we endorsed Obama.

Now after 32 years in the newspaper business, I’ve come to realize that readers cancel newspapers for any number of reasons, not all of them over news content.

Over the years, I’ve heard of people canceling or threatening to cancel over everything from the dropping of the Jumble word game to the removal of international temperatures from the weather page.

And let’s not forget the furor we caused several years ago when some here-to-be-unnamed former editor-in-chief thought it would be a good idea to drop Dr. Gott from the paper in order to find a spot for the Sudoku puzzle. (Once the phone stopped ringing, we found a way to carry both.)

But I can honestly say that during my long career at three daily newspapers in New England, this is the first time I recall readers actually canceling their subscriptions because a newspaper had the gall – on its Opinion page, no less – to offer an opinion on what may be the most important presidential election in generations.

We didn’t get this kind of reaction when we endorsed Al Gore in 2000. Or Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Or Sen. John McCain and Obama in the weeks leading up to the New Hampshire primary elections back in January.

Curious about this phenomenon, I turned to my colleagues in the National Conference of Editorial Writers and posted a query on the group’s listserve, asking if any of their newspapers had experienced a similar reaction from readers after they published their endorsements.

Of the roughly two-dozen editorial page editors to respond, the majority said they were aware of at least some cancellations in the wake of their endorsement editorials, ranging from “one” to “more than 70” at a newspaper in the Midwest.

While most of these newspapers had endorsed Obama, that wasn’t the case across the board. Even the papers that had endorsed McCain had struck a negative chord with some of their readers. Like us, some of these newspapers also were taken to task for “taking sides” on their Opinion pages.

OK. Let me try to make a couple of points here about editorials in general and candidate endorsements in particular:

First, editorials appear on a newspaper’s Opinion page every day because they are just that: opinions. While they should always be based on facts, they are supposed to biased – that is, convey a particular point of view that represents the collective wisdom of the newspaper’s editorial board.

As such, they are separate from and never should be used to influence the objective newsgathering process that takes place in the newsroom. That’s why reporters don’t traditionally sit on editorial boards.

Here at The Telegraph, the editorial board consists of the publisher, executive editor, editorial page editor, business editor, managing editor/online and vice president for digital media.

In this case, that means Telegraph political reporter Kevin Landrigan, who is covering the U.S. Senate race, neither participated in nor was notified in advance of our endorsement today in that race. If all went as intended, some of you may have read about it before he did.

Secondly, the purpose of an editorial is not – we repeat, not – to tell readers what to do or how to think – especially when it comes time to step behind the curtains in the voting booth. That’s your decision; not ours.

As I mentioned in a column after our presidential primary endorsements, we endorse candidates for the same reason we publish editorials every day for the rest of the year: to participate in the civic life of the community.

Sometimes our editorials attempt to put into perspective something we reported on our news pages. Other times they praise, criticize or call for a particular action by a governmental board of agency. And, yes, still other times they let you know how we feel about the candidates running for public office.

In all cases, they are published on our Opinion pages – not the news pages. In that way it should be clear to the reader that it isn’t much different than the opinions stated by our syndicated columnists or by people like you who submit letters to the editor for publication.

So please help me out here:

Does this longstanding tradition of newspapers endorsing political candidates not make sense anymore? Do you believe newspapers should refrain from endorsing candidates for any office – from president to city mayor? Heck, do you believe like Jason that it’s inappropriate for a newspaper to even publish a “group opinion,” i.e., an editorial, on its Opinion page?

You can e-mail me at the address below with your thoughts, which I will be happy to share with your fellow readers in a future column.

Unless, of course, you don’t think that’s appropriate, either.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.

Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Me thinks the editorial page editor doth protest much too much!

    Of course opinion pages are for opinions, including those of the editorial board. There probably was a time when their's were the only opinions published, so the Telegraph and most other responsible papers have made progress in helping others in the community engage in meaningful discussions of important issues. Like who is likely to be a better president.

    I suspect that much of the vitriol you are hearing from a tiny fraction of your readers is an unfortunate byproduct of the vitriol we're hearing from the campaigns, and which has stirred up some folk's sense of animosity beyond all reason and civility.

    The Telegraph opinion pages are well balanced. Keep up the good work
    • ^
    • v
    Anyone who had been reading your paper would not be surprised by your endorsement. Only a few days before, you had a picture of Barack Obama on the front page, above the fold, and a color picture of Michelle Obama on the first page of an inside section. A small, black-and-white picture of McCain's daughter, making a local campaign stop, was on the front page, below the fold.

    During this election season, the media has been overwhelmingly favorable to Obama. This is seen most recently in comparing the press' response to comments made by each of the Vice Presidential candidates. While Biden has been given a free pass time and time again, Palin is dragged over the coals for every statement she makes.

    While I don't begrudge your paper's endorsement of Obama, you had already tipped your hand. There was no reason to state your endorsement. Your favoritism was clear long ago.
    • ^
    • v
    To clarify - during Sen Obama's most recent trip to NH the photo coverage at the top of the front page was not of him. It was of a crowd of people at his rally. There was a headshot of him from the rally below the fold on the front page.

    During Sen McCain and Gov Palin's visits in the past two weeks both received nearly identical display at the top of the front page. Sen McCain's daughter was below the fold on front because she visited on the same day as Sen. Obama.

    I am not making an argument as to coverage bias here as that interpretation is completely subjective in any case. But I think if you review the coverage of candidate visits the treatment has been very similar.

    thanks

    Damon Kiesow
    Managing Editor / Online
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think you should refrain from endorsing people. It doesn't influence me any more than yard signs, and a well reasoned opinion is better for the environment and much less of an eyesore. I wouldn't put too much stock in people who boycott/cancel subscriptions over it. I was more distressed over the prospect of losing Dr. Gott.
    • ^
    • v
    I read at least 2 or 3 papers a day, and since I also live in the South, which papers those are depends on my current location. With that said, I have never seen a paper that isn't slanted, one way or the other.

    Do I think newspaper endorsements are appropriate? No. Will that ever change? No. Will I stop reading The Telegraph/Asheville Citizen-Times/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Union Leader, etc. because of endorsements? No.

    As you stated, people will cancel (or threaten to) for the least little reason. But this particular campaign seems to have more people on-edge than usual.

    In 2 weeks, this will all be over anyway, one way or the other. "Opinion" pages are just that, a place to air opinions, whether it be from the staff or from readers. If someone dislikes your endorsement (myself included), then just write an "opinion" yourself (which, I might add, The Telegraph is diligent when it comes to printing the 'other side').

    Don't lose any sleep over it.
    • ^
    • v
    The Telegraph has very right to publish the opinion of the editor or the editorial board. Those who would chose to cancel because of it are of closed mind. I look forward to reading how other people think about anything. It is their right to express it and I will fight for that right. I may not agree with it but I respect it. There are many other reasons to cancel your subscription such as late reporting of breaking news or poorly investigated stories before they go to print, poor writing skills, fire and police reporters that don't work nights or weekends... but i digress
    • ^
    • v
    Although I can't say I agree with your endorsement (nor one for McCain), I continue to subscribe precisely because you did endorse Senator Obama -- on the editorial page. Media bias isn't a matter of a paper always endorsing one side. It's a matter of not knowing (or not caring) about the separation between its editorial opinion and its news reporting. Though imperfect, I think the Telegraph does a reasonable job of keeping the two distinct.

    In the past, I've found the Telegraph editorial board to keep a fairly open mind to points of view to which they do not agree. As a Libertarian Party candidate some years back, your editorial board treated me respectfully as a legitimate candidate for public office. While this is only as it should be, it was rather refreshing after years of "and on the lighter side of politics...."
    • ^
    • v
    Certainly the editors of a newspaper should state their preference in an editorial section, even though ideally newspapers would not take sides in a partisan election. Certainly by expressing your opinion, you are trying to influence how others will vote (why else would you or your readers submit their opinions); but you also provide the opportunity for others to agree or disagree and this adds to the political discourse. I am much more concerned about bias in the coverage of news about the candidates and the issues. For example, there certainly seems to be a reluctance to investigate Sen. Obama's record. Only now are we starting to hear (but not from the mainstream media) about his membership in the radical New Party in the mid 1990's, his involvement with ACORN, his role as executive in managing and distributing the $150 million raised for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and sharing an office with Bill Ayers. How are we to judge the credibility of a candidate's rhetoric without evaluating his or her past record?
    • ^
    • v
    The Nashua Telegragh is a great paper and we are very fortunate to have it.
    If people are angry that you support Obama so be it.
    Many papers support candidates in their editorial section, they have for years.
    If people are offended that you do not support their candidate so what.
    I have read your paper for years along with the Globe and Times.
    The editorial page is always slanted and often the most interesting section of the paper.
    So let these people cancel their papers.
    I am sure they will be back after the election.
    If not that is their loss.
    I am so tired of the minorities trying to change what the majority supports.
    I am in favor of free press.
    The editorial page is about opinions

    /
    • ^
    • v
    Opinion pages are just that: OPINIONS -- not news. Intelligent readers will recognize that the opinion page offers a a public discussion on important issues. There is no place better for a spirited debate on current issues as our Constitution does grant all of us - including newspaper editorial staff, letter writes and columnists the right to free speech. Discussion of issues leads to a better understanding of all sides - that is what our democracy is all about - serving the people based on the what the majority of them want.
    • ^
    • v
    Here's a new view from one who no longer cares what stupid/ignorant US voters do anymore. If the tatooed/body-piercing advocates of "Puke-Obama" want him, they've got him! Opps, did I forget to wish them well with Karl Marx Obama at the helm? Sorry about that. Here's a short message from a few that long ago chose not to bring any children of ours into this world, because it was all too obvious, more that 40 years ago, where this nation was headed - and it's happening!

    This one-time subscriber of the Telgraph learned long ago that political opinion too often drifted into the area of the newspaper that purported itself to being the news REPORTING area. Understanding the idea of publishing and editorial column, with the understanding that it should express only the opinion of the writer, is why this one-time Telegraph subscriber long-ago gave up on reading anything of reporting-relevance in the Telegraph.

    Enjoy your life.

    George A. Keiper
    • ^
    • v
    Most, who are actually able to understand what is meant by "editorial comment", should easily understand what the published editorial page is all about. Unfortunately, there's also the poor result of government-controlled "Public Education" to be considered. Excuse me, but generation after generation of increasing numbers of young people, poorly educated, and unable to even understand the issues that confront all of us. Unfortortunately, those poorly-educated, tatooed, and body-part pierced, folks are unable to make intelligent decisions at the polls. Gee, isn't it great to have a greater turnout of voters when those voters are unable to understand the difference between an appealing tatoo or an attractive navel ring?

    Count this once-military veteran, and 50-year worker, as one who really no longer cares about anything such unintelligent voters want to do anymore with our nation. Have fun, get something new pierced, and try to find some way to justify your actions to the children you might have. Enjoy!

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus