We printed this letter today, which raises some interesting questions about the role of the publisher. Those questions deserve to be answered. Here's the letter. The answers will follow the jump:
A publisher's view can influence coverage
Debbie Meade, the incoming publisher of The Roanoke Times, is also chair-elect of Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge. Thank you for telling us (Oct. 19 news article, "Newspaper will get new hand at the helm").
In covering the critical and divisive issue of abortion, The Times now has no credibility. Your assurance that the publisher's political opinions have no effect on your news coverage defies common sense.
The conflict of interest is obvious.
Will Meade recuse herself when the editorial board discusses or writes on abortion or "recommends" candidates, as she has a personal interest in abortion laws?
What kind of direction will she give to news editors when they are covering anti-abortion news?
Does anyone at The Times even understand what kind of statement this makes about the newspaper?
PAUL ROBERTSON
BLACKSBURG
Publishers are people with opinions, just like everyone else. Ms. Meade's opinion on abortion would be the same regardless of her involvement with Planned Parenthood. And her opinion matches the longstanding editorial position of the newspaper, so there is no conflict of interest, and there is no need for her to recuse herself from editorial board discussions on the topic. The two publishers preceding Ms. Meade have been supporters of Planned Parenthood, but not board members. Their involvement did not have a negative impact on The Roanoke Times' ability or willingness to cover all sides of the abortion question.
Traditionally, the publisher's opinion carries the most weight of any other person involved in determining the editorial position of the newspaper. Publishers are not expected maintain a strict appearance of objectivity. But fairness - actual fairness, not merely the appearance - is of utmost importance. Which is why publishers generally leave the day-to-day operation of the news sections to the newspaper's editor.
It may "defy common sense," but the publisher's political opinions will have no effect on our news coverage.
The Roanoke Times maintains a strict wall of separation between the news and opinion functions, and we understand how absolutely vital that is to our credibility. And the credibility of this newspaper is its most valued and valuable asset.
Comments
[October 31, 2006 7:10 PM]
Josh"Their involvement did not have a negative impact on The Roanoke Times' ability or willingness to cover all sides of the abortion question."
Yeah, right. When was the last time your paper covered the annual "Life Chain" at the corner of Orange Av. and Williamson Rd. held every October?
Then there was your recent editorial on the Morning After pill "Finally, A Plan B" in which you pretty much belittled the motives of those pharmacists who chose not to carry the drug for moral reasons. The editorial completely omitted the fact that the reason pro-lifers oppose Plan B is that it has been shown to prevent attachment of the embryo on the uterine wall, which is tantamount to an abortion.
There is nothing at all even-handed about your coverage of the abortion issue.
[October 31, 2006 7:39 PM]
C. TrejbalJosh, you seem to be confusing the very thing that Dan made a point of differentiating.
We editorialized in favor of the morning after pill because we have long argued for women's access to health care options in our editorials. But that's an editorial position. The editorial page is biased in so far as we stand for certain principles and offer opinions based on them.
News, which is divided from us by the metaphorical wall, not to mention a literal ceiling in The Roanoke Times offices, has nothing to do with our editorial stances, and we have nothing to do with their news coverage. It is in the news coverage that the publisher's personal beliefs will not affect the coverage of all sides.
As for your specific citation of the "Life Chain," no, I don't recall our covering it in the last couple of Octobers. Supporters of choice could no doubt point to events of their own that the news department has not covered.
Newspapers do not cover every rally because, frankly, most of them are not newsworthy. What more does the "Life Chain" reveal than that there are people who oppose abortion? Everyone knows that already, thanks, in part, to the coverage their position receives in reporting about other newsworthy events such as court decisions and legislation.
[October 31, 2006 10:41 PM]
JoshC,
I'm not confusing the distinction at all. Dan said that a publisher's job to is to maintain not objectivity, but fairness.
I'm not objecting to the editorial position of the "Morning After" editorial, just that the pro-lifers' reason for opposing the pill was omitted.
[October 31, 2006 10:57 PM]
JoshI have a question, guys, and this is not meant to be combative.
It seems obvious to me that the editorial staff carries what most would considered a 'liberal' bent. Do you consider yourselves that way, or do you bristle at that and say "No, we're centrist" or "We refuse to be labeled." Just curious how you view yourselves.
In the event you view yourselves as liberal, is it a requirement that all on the editorial staff have liberal views as well?
How about the news staff? Would most of them be considered liberal? Does political viewpoint matter in their quest for employment there?
Surely it doesn't matter in stuff like sports. Or does it?
Just curious
[November 1, 2006 8:38 AM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
We only have so many words in an editorial. In the Plan B editorial, we wrote, "Social conservatives -- the hard-core base of President Bush supporters -- successfully held up over-the-counter sales and clouded the debate by equating pills that prevent pregnancy with ones that terminate pregnancy. Plan B isn't an abortifacient. It's no more morally reprehensible nor medically unsafe than traditional birth control pills."
And the fact is, that's true. In a very small number of cases, both Plan B and birth control pills will, as you say, prevent the attachment of an embryo to the uterine wall.
Plan B is not the same as RU-486. They work differently, and in most cases Plan B works by preventing fertilization.
[November 1, 2006 8:48 AM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
Those are some good questions. I consider myself a liberal. I won't answer for the others on the editorial board, but I will say that our political philosophies are quite compatible, even if we are far from agreement on every single issue.
We try not to be knee-jerk anything, and we try not to be reflexively partisan. Our goal is to come to each issue and each situation with a fresh perspective - guided, of course, by a consistent philosophy.
Which brings us to your question about whether we require all members of the editorial board to be liberal. Political ideology is not in the job description. But, frankly, a conservative would get frustrated very quickly on our editorial board.
An editorial board works by developing a consensus opinion. A lone conservative could not have much impact on that consensus. So that person would end up on the losing end of most arguments.
As for the news staff, I couldn't tell you whether most are liberal or conservative. If they fit the profile of most newsrooms in the country, most of them probably tend to vote Democratic. But does their political viewpoint matter when they're hired? Not at all. I can't speak for The Roanoke Times editor, Mike Riley, but I have no reason to believe that what matters when they hire reporters is how well an applicant writes and a track record of excellence as a reporter.
[November 1, 2006 10:22 AM]
C. TrejbalI'm not a big fan of using one convenient label to sum up a person's political thoughts, but, Josh, I'd guess you would consider me a liberal. I do take very progressive views on many issues, but as my fellow board members can attest, I'm also very libertarian on many issues, which generates a number of debates in our meetings.
So overall, I'd say I'm left of center, but on any given issue, I could surprise you.
I agree with Dan on the question of how much a conservative editorial writer would like working with us. Before I came to Roanoke, I was the left-most member of a conservative editorial board. For a while it didn't bother me too much, but eventually you start to feel like you're banging your head against the wall.
[November 1, 2006 11:06 AM]
JoshI appreciate the honest and detailed responses, Dan and Christian. It actually makes it easier to read your editorials knowing that you admit where you're coming from.
What I detest is when these idiots like Dan Rather insist they are neutral and objective, then go on and reported they way they do.
And Christian, if you thought this editorial board was conservative, at least any time the last 14 or so years, all I can say is 'Wow!"
Also, I wish you could hook Tommy Denton's columns to this blog. I've often screamed at that guy's work. Sunday's piece about "Bush's War for Oil" was just too good to leave alone.
Thanks again.
[November 1, 2006 11:34 AM]
C. TrejbalBelieve it or not, there are a great number of conservative newspaper editorial boards out there. The big papers and one's local paper often shape perceptions, but there are a lot of newspapers in America, and they run across the political spectrum. It's not all New York Times vs. Wall Street Journal.
As a superficial litmus test, one can look at endorsements in the last two
presidential elections.
(I generally despise about.com, it was the first list that came up on google.)
Check out who endorsed Bush and who Kerry, and also who switched between 2000 and 2004. Generally, I'd argue it's a safe guess that anyone who endorsed Bush both times tends toward the conservative side of things and likewise anyone who endorsed Kerry and Gore. Of course some genuinely centrist papers will get wrapped up in there too, but this is a reasonable first filter.
[November 1, 2006 4:21 PM]
C. TrejbalMore on the Life Chain:
The Roanoke Times ran a photo of the event in 2004. Here's the cutline from our archives.
Date: Monday, October 4, 2004
Section: VIRGINIA
Edition: METRO
Page: B8
Illustration: Photo - Gerald Brunning (blue shirt), Joseph McGuire (white shirt) and about 125 other people gathered from 2 to 4 p.m. Sunday at Williamson Road and Orange Avenue to protest abortion during the 15th annual Roanoke Valley Life Chain. Some passing motorists verbally disagreed with the protesters, while others honked their horns in support.
[November 1, 2006 10:12 PM]
JoshC.
Thanks for both pieces of information. Very interesting on the newspaper endorsements. Closer than I realized.