2008.10.26
Is our political coverage fair? We want your feedback
Roanoke Times editor Carole Tarrant in today’s From the Newsroom column:
On the back of today’s Horizon section, you will find a full-page guide to The Roanoke Times’ newsroom.
We believe it’s our first-ever such guide — at least a first in this generation of Times journalists. And it fulfills one of my goals in becoming editor of this paper last year — to provide a wider window through which you, the reader, can see how we do our work at 201 W. Campbell Ave.
Ever wonder where to send story ideas? Or how to get reprints of our photos? The guide answers those questions and many others we hear frequently. It also provides names and contact information for key newsroom editors.
It’s these folks who, day in and out, make many of the ground-level decisions about what we cover and how, in news, sports and features. I hope you will look them up and share news you have heard or pass along feedback on how we’re doing.
[You can browse a PDf of our newsroom guide here. ]
And if this guide was of service or left you with more questions, let me know. We’ll continue to answer your questions in this occasional Sunday column, as well as on a new editors’ blog that launched last week on roanoke.com.
The blog shares the same name as this print column, “From the Newsroom,” but it will be updated frequently as we respond to your questions, explain the backstory on our coverage and tell you about additions or changes to the paper and Web site.
We’re kicking this off with an invitation for you to go online and talk about what becomes a hot topic at this time every four years — the presidential campaign and complaints of media bias.
We hear about it, incidentally, from both sides.
One caller recently left a voice mail criticizing us for “burying” a “Troopergate” wire story about Todd Palin’s involvement in the firing of Alaska’s public safety commissioner. The story ran on page eight of our “A” section, which is not atypical of our campaign coverage throughout 2008.
“I just wonder how much money the Republican Party is paying you to quash that story,” the caller said. “Don’t think your readers aren’t watching.”
A few weeks earlier, a reader mailed us a clipping from The Roanoke Times with this headline: “Obama vows to fight McCain’s attacks.” The reader wrote above the headline, “Would you say this is one-sided? This is why I don’t subscribe to the newspaper.”
Presumably the reader was unhappy that the first paragraph of The Associated Press story began with Barack Obama attacking John McCain as a “relic of the disco era.” The second paragraph, however, provided the context and balance — Obama had come out swinging because the then-latest polls showed McCain and running mate Sarah Palin picking up votes.
I’d like to pass along two points that are relevant in a discussion about bias and The Roanoke Times.
The first is a reminder to look at the reader’s guide we published today. Our editorial page editor, Dan Radmacher, leads an editorial staff that writes unvarnished opinions. That’s their calling, and their work appears on the pages labeled “Opinion” that run daily in the back of the Virginia section (excluding Sunday’s Horizon section). Dan reports to our publisher, Debbie Meade.
As at many U.S. papers of this size and larger, the editor of the newspaper doesn’t weigh in on editorial pages or sit on the editorial board. I have no part in endorsing a candidate or advocating a position on a local issue. I supervise the 105-person newsroom, which resides a floor above the editorial staffers.
I make that point as a practical matter: Many of you send your letters to the editor to me when Dan Radmacher is the rightful recipient.
But I also make it because I believe the claims of bias aren’t really claims of bias; they’re challenges to our professionalism as journalists.
Are the employees of the Roanoke Times newsroom free of bias? To me, the answer is simple: Of course not; we’re human. You can’t escape what you grew up with.
But you can accept the mantle of a professional journalist working in a professional U.S. newsroom. It’s a place where the following questions are asked every day, not just this time of year: Are we being fair? Are we upholding our duty to report with accuracy, sensitivity and context? Are our ears open and are we truly listening to every voice?
This time of year, in particular, our editors tie themselves up in knots striving to inject fairness and purity into a wholly political process. Over the course of a campaign, we strive to give competing candidates a close approximation of equal space and treatment in the newspaper, right down to examining the size of photos we run with stories.
But on a daily basis it’s not always an exact science, and basic news value will sometimes dictate which candidate gets the most attention.
Obama’s visits to Southwest Virginia have resulted in him getting featured more prominently in our paper those days. He’s simply been in the state and region more often than McCain. His stop in Roanoke Oct. 17 warranted significant coverage because of its historic significance — it marked the first time a presidential candidate of his stature visited the city during a general election campaign since John F. Kennedy visited here in 1960.
Palin, the first female Republican vice presidential candidate, has her own place in history, and we expect to prominently feature her Monday visit in Salem.
This campaign season has provided many more examples where our editors have tediously deliberated over a story’s position on the page as well as the wording in a headline.
Such discussions about fairness are as steeped into this newsroom’s walls as the smell of ink and paper.
Yet, at this time of year in particular, I wonder if journalists would hear less about bias if we did more to explain all we do to be fair.
Look for this column and the “From the Newsroom” blog to take a swing at doing just that.
Of course the Roke Times is as liberal and biased as the Washington Post and NBC. You know it, or should, so why are you asking? You are liberal so your little paper is liberal. You may not even know your bias but I know you are not going to change it. Surprisedly, you have a few good reporters.
Comment by Edgar — October 26, 2008 @ 10:57 am
I agree with Edgar. The media in general and you specifically have lost objectivity as you lean so far left. I don’t know if this is a joke or if you are just looking for something to start a conversation.
Comment by Steve — October 26, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
For a conservative minded individual who created his environment by surrounding himself with conservative friends, attending conservative churches and only watches one sided television commentators (fake news), it must be terribly frightening to see a different point of view being expressed and considered.
Too often, when one refuses to acknowledge different people, different backgrounds, different experiences and different visions we build walls around “our world” and cling to “our kind”.
When I hear people complain about the “liberal media” I want to tell they should thank their lucky stars that someone is opening their minds to things they never considered.
A secure individual does not fear different opinions, in fact, welcomes them.
Comment by Joe — October 26, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
You spend the whole article telling us how “fair” you are … what a joke. Take a poll of your readers to see how many think you are “fair”, but then you would probably slant that into your column too. Example, Horizon today ‘Selecting the next president’ – total of 12 excerpts – one neutral, one pro McCain, and 10 PRO-OBAMA. Yeah, that’s really “fair”. I just hope that one day soon there will be a newspaper available in Roanoke that does take journalism seriously and will report the NEWS and not just one-sided opinions. If Obama is elected … this will probably NEVER happen … so sad.
Comment by HopeforAmerica — October 26, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Yes you are biased. Obama would not be in the race with 30% of polls if full disclosure of his socialist backers were discussed in the media. The Chicago thugs will influence White House agenda. The Times had better have a draft of an impeachment editorial by July 09. Warner, will he jump in bed with the ulta-liberals after elected? Based on his shuning at the convention, maybe he will have the backbone to form a conservitive coalition with like-minded Republicans and stop this run-a-way government.
If Obama gets his “middle class” tax cut, look out for a leftist round house knock-out of a 4% Soc Sec increase to all tax payers.
Comment by Don Arnold — October 26, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Are you kidding me? Is your political coverage fair? From your headlines on the front page to your editorials to the letters section you have consistently favored the Democratic nominee over the Republican nominee at least as far back as the Clinton years and it has not even been subtle, but blatantly skewed with a liberal bias. The real question you might consider asking is, “Why do your reporters, editors, and choice of AP stories reflect a certain favoritism rather than staying objective?”
Comment by Shields Jarrett — October 26, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Your political coverage is totally unfair. I gave up reading your opinions as well as the editorial page long ago, and have tried to convinice my husband that we are paying for trash subscribing to your paper. He, as many others, take the paper for the puzzle, comics and tv schedule. And, you wonder why your subscriptions are on the decline?
Comment by Sandra Smith — October 26, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
well I’m still into my 1st subscription since moving to this area. I’ve encountered small-minded, big-mouthed, biggots and racists. I listen to the local NPR radio station (and vote) and even that has been butchered to the right-wing conservatives. This is evident by the lack of “negative” comments regarding the current occupying force in our Federal government (which is present in our surrounding states.) So, is the newspaper too right-wing, too conservative? Well, this is your bread and butter so it would only figure that yes you are. Coming from a well-rounded family, having an education, even tempered parenting with a respect for tolerance, I can’t tell you how “shocked” I am at all the good Christians in this area making racial slurs, terrible gender remarks when Ms Clinton was running and pathetic attemps at intimadation of neighbors who don’t follow the old-farts that still end up going to their Sunday Church service.
Comment by RCC Hiwassee — October 26, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
I know the difference between reporting the news and promoting a point of view. Your political coverage is not reporting, it is promoting a specific party and a specific candidate. There is little difference between your opinion page and your other political articles. The majority of your coverage is pro liberal and anti conservative. You fail to explore possible negative aspects of liberal policies, while going to great lengths to criticize any policy that is conservative. By your own admission, all of your opinion page editors share the same basic political view. Where is the fairness and objectivity?
Comment by Alec Richardson — October 27, 2008 @ 10:00 am
The Roanoke Times has been consistently Liberal leaning in it’s coverage of the presidential election. In Sunday’s paper, there were comments on the editorial page written by many individuals. I could only find one that favored the Republican ticket. I am sure that was not representative of the local area voters. The news media’s job should be to inform and present the facts to the viewers. Sadly the print media and the television/radio media have gotten away from this principle.
Comment by W&S — October 27, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
I know that catching flak is hard. I get it every time I post or have a letter or commentary printed. Some people want to forget that you are trying to represent the opinions and best course for ALL of your readers not just the ones with money and power. Speaking up for the little guy like me, policing the corporations, fat cats, politicians and power brokers is the essential job of the 4th Estate. The RT does it fairly well in my opinion. When you hated on Bill & Hillary and printed seemingly every scurrilous talking point the right put out, I was outraged and now that the powers that be are getting the same treatment they are screaming like babies. Americans in general and the people of the Roanoke Region in particular, are not stupid. We know what is going on and we poor folks take the brunt of it. We are grateful to our local paper for not caving in to the critics, me or anyone else. If you were a liberal rag, I would agree with you and your editorial perspectives a lot more often so people, give it a rest! I have had to endure your endorsements of Republicans I did not like, so now someone else will have to endure the same. I can tell the difference in a news article and an opinion piece as well as the truth and a lie, a reasoned argument and a talking point, but I appreciate your efforts to clarify all the same. Keep up the good work. A lot of people are afraid of the backlash and will not speak out but they tell me that they appreciate it when brave souls stick their necks out. If the press or editorial boards cave, we are lost! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Sound Familiar? It is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights and it is there for a reason. Love them or hate them a free press is as essential as any army, maybe even more so.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 27, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Your Sunday, 10/26, ‘From the Newroom’ section asked “Is our political coverage fair”. Feedback was requested and here is mine. The simple answer is No. The paper has an obvious slant to the Left. Generally speaking this is not a problem. The paper is entitled to its opinion. Ideally this would appear on the Editorial page. That’s the only place it should appear. Unfortunately, in the Times and most other mainstream newpapers, editorial views are cropping up all over the paper including straight news.
For all but the politically astute, this is problematic. The average reader does not recognize they are being led in a particular direction. In the early days of our history, newpapers commonly held strong political viewpoints throughout the document. The difference then was that their Masthead told the reader where they were coming from. Additionally, local competition, absent from the current scene, insured that all points of view had fairly equal distribution. The current trend in newspaper reporting is for all intents and purposes, unethical from the standpoint of providing the average reader with unbiased news.
To meet the ‘fair and balanced’ requirement in today’s media environment I would suggest the following:
1) The papers political opinion should appear only on the Editorial Page.
2) Opinion pages should contain approximately equal contributions from liberal
and conservative authors.
3) Letters to the Editor should also be balanced.
The Roanoke Times is currently off the mark on items 2 and 3.
As far as National reporting is concerned, I will admit that ‘fair and balanced’ is difficult to achieve given the fact that your biggest source is the Associated Press which has its’ own agenda. This can be somewhat mediated by not burying opposition positions and news in the nether regions of the paper. Coverage by omission is also an obvious bias.
I would also offer the thought that should some of these suggestions be adopted you just might buck the trend and see your circulation Increase.
Comment by Roger Lewis — October 27, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Thank you to all of the readers who took the time to post their feedback here or send me e-mails. I’ll post a follow-up tomorrow wrapping up this feedback and discussing Sunday’s Horizon section.
Meanwhile here’s a comment from reader MWaters:
Unfortunately, too many news outlets, print and TV, interpret that to mean equal numbers of words or minutes for each candidate or point of view. That’s obviously silly.
Living in different places, I’ve had daily subscriptions to other newspapers, including the Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and others. I admire and take seriously newspapers and TV stations that seek to be responsible and accurate, not “fair and balanced.” The Roanoke Times is a remarkably fine newpaper by these standards.
I have a notion that those who complain about your “unfair” coverage just have never been any place else, and have not had the advantage of living in different parts of the USA or the world. Keep on doing what you are doing extremely well.
Comment by caroletarrant — October 27, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Also you can check our editorial page Roundtable blog for this posting on the Obama/McCain commentaries we’ve run. The tally? Obama’s ahead. http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/roundtable/2008/10/27/its-true-the-op-eds-have-been-lopsided/
Comment by caroletarrant — October 27, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
When I read that Ms. Tarrant wanted feedback on political coverage, I mistakenly assumed that she meant what she said. Silly me. After twelve responses, she decided to reprint the favorable comments of one reader as a not so subtle attempt to scold those who provided critical comments. Ms Tarrant misses the point of many critics. I do not expect equal numbers of words or minutes for each candidate or point of view. I also admire and take seriously newspapers and TV stations that seek to be responsible and accurate. Unfortunately The Roanoke Times appears to seek only to be reasonably accurate, having decided that fair and balanced was just too hard. The reprinted comments also reinforces the stereotype that many readers of The Roanoke Times are not sophisticated, well read, or well traveled enough to know good journalism when they read it.
Comment by Alec Richardson — October 28, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Yes Carole there is bias in your newspaper and I don’t think you will do much about it. Your paper reflects a larger narrative expressed by much of the media supporting the Democratic Party and its policies. It is part of the reporting by the AP and most definitely found in your Op/Ed pages. While claiming balance during these last few months, you overlook years of partisan support by the Roanoke Times for this point of view. The tone is generally disdain for all things Republican and praise for Democrats.
I do not agree with your statement that “we can’t escape what we grew up with”. I contend that with a balanced view of the world a reasonable person will be able to judge how to select the nations leaders. Your first job is provide that balance. I think this is the source of the dissatisfaction some of your readers are expressing. You are mistaken when you ascribe the bias claim as a challenge to your profession. It is the constant barrage of one sided stories that have people like me disregarding your paper as a reliable source of information.
PS: I grew up in Massachusetts–lived in New Jersey and Rhode Island as an adult and have read the same newspapers as cited above.
Comment by Red White & Blue — October 28, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
To Alec Richardson: I posted the comment from MWaters because this person had e-mailed me that he/she was having trouble posting to this blog. There was no “scolding” involved — just me trying to help someone who wanted to contribute to this conversation.
Comment by caroletarrant — October 29, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Fair? No, but that’s not the right question. Is your reporting useful? Are you giving your readers what they need to make decisions? To form their opinions? To figure out how they can better participate in our government? To vote? Those are better questions. And the answer is consistently NO.
Remembering that your goal is not to report accurately or fairly or even objectively but to sell newpapers you really don’t report news anymore. You market events. Your writers attempt to stir controversy and rarely offer enough evidence to come to a conclusion. You post far more “he said she said” headlines than actual position or issue material. The juicy stuff is who “charged” someone with something and who “denied” what. Very little of your column space is devoted to whether the charge is accurate, a mere political move, or even worth reporting. It would be so refreshing to see your paper objectively analyze position statements, or negative ads, or voting records and present the information in an understandable format.
A good example: One of Obama’s positions is to increase the highest tax rate to fund many of his entitlement programs. Have you ever considered what that would do to the middle class? You see, we pay that rate too. On raises, bonuses, lump sum salary payments. That’s where the real increase in tax revenue would come from. Not from the wealthy. They know how to avoid tax increases. (See Laffer curve) And they already pay about two thirds of all the taxes the government gets. Ever mention that? No.
Lets’ not leave out McCain. He promises to veto every bill that contains an earmark. Would that work? EVERY bill contains pork. Wouldn’t he shut down the government. Remember the last time that happened? Did any of your people offer that for consideration? His health care idea is to give people a refundable tax credit and to tax employer health benefits. You haven’t looked into how he would ensure people use the credit for health needs and not something else. And just what is a “refundable tax credit”? I think I know the answers to these questions based on looking at websites and my own education. But I didn’t read it in your paper.
Both of them attack each other with questionable “charges” like Obama voted to raise taxes several hundred times and McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Did you ever analyze those charges? No.
I could fill up the allowable characters here with examples of deficient reporting on your part in politics just with McCain and Obama. Forget about local politics.
In short. When it comes to news, especially political news, you sell the sizzle. You rarely provide the boiled down objective truth.
Comment by Barry — October 30, 2008 @ 12:19 am
Barry, thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We can do better at providing analysis, I agree. It is something we seek out from the wire services we subscribe to (Associated Press, Washington Post, McClatchy). But it might interest you to know I’ve received negative feedback to those analyses, too. The last time we ran one on 1A a reader loudly declared that the front page was no place for analysis — he wanted news only, thank you very much. We keep trying to find a balance to meet all your needs.
Comment by caroletarrant — October 31, 2008 @ 1:35 pm