Posted on: Sunday, September 19, 2004
AFTER DEADLINE
Political endorsements are opinions, not orders
By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor
The lady who called was polite, but insistent: Once again, she said, The Advertiser had overstepped its role by daring to endorse candidates for the primary election.
She was particularly incensed by the paper's decision to endorse Honolulu mayoral candidate Mufi Hannemann over rival Duke Bainum and others.
What right, she asked, did The Advertiser have to tell people how they should vote? Isn't this a basic duty of democracy that should be left to each individual voter?
And at one level she is correct. The Advertiser, through its endorsement process, does not "tell" people how to vote. Rather, the endorsement tells readers which candidate best fits the criteria we believe are important for the office of mayor, governor or whatever.
Readers are free to take our analysis or leave it, just as with any editorial.
Our position is that we take stands on issues all year long. Why would we duck taking a stand on the one question where every registered voter has an opportunity to be heard?
The process of deciding on endorsements is complex and, admittedly, somewhat fluid. In the major races, we attempt to spend time with the candidates, read their campaign literature, watch advertisements and attend community meetings where the candidates speak.
We then sit down as an editorial board (the names of the participating members are printed beneath the editorials every day) and discuss the race. The process is somewhat informal, with give-and-take conversation from the publisher on down.
At some point, the question is called. Most often, there is consensus. If there isn't, the prevailing side seeks to understand and incorporate the thinking of the "opposition."
The editorial is written and then circulated to see if it reflects the thinking of the group.
We take this responsibility seriously. We understand that those who fail to win our endorsement are often disappointed. In fact, readers of our endorsements over recent years will find that we often find good things to say about the person who failed to win our nod.
(We've chuckled over the fact that on several occasions, candidates who did not win our endorsement excerpted the good things we had to say and used them in advertisements of their own.)
What is important to remember is that the endorsement represents the editorial opinion of the editors and editorial page. It does not reflect the thinking of the entire paper, particularly the writers and editors who have to deal with political coverage every day.
We insist on a "firewall" between the opinion section and the news side. Reporters understand quite well that editorial opinion should not — must not — impact the fairness of their news coverage.
We also understand that endorsements are simply a reflection of opinion, not a predictor of success. We have "lost" as many endorsements as we have won.
As for our caller, it turns out that she was as unhappy with the fact that we endorsed Hannemann over Bainum as she was that we chose to endorse at all. As is often the case, callers tend to be more unhappy with our choice of opinion than they are with the fact that we expressed it in the first place.
Jerry Burris is editor of The Advertiser's editorial pages.
