2008.11.02
Discuss Radmacher's column
Conversation can't happen without you
By Dan Radmacher
The longest presidential campaign in my lifetime ends Tuesday. One thing you won't see this year is a presidential endorsement from The Roanoke Times.
A decision was made at the corporate level by our ownership to forgo presidential endorsements. The rationale is that, while we bring unique perspective to state and local endorsements where we have an opportunity to interview candidates and often know them well, we have no such advantage at the presidential level.
RSS feed 
Good decision.
Comment by David Nelson — November 2, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Given the number of editorials bashing McCain, there was no need for a formal endorsement.
One suspects the corporate decision was not based as much on this supposed disadvantage you labor under as the quadrennial wave of subscription cancellations sure to arrive after another specious round of reasons to vote for the guy with the (D) after his name.
I've been lining in the valley for over twnety years and don't recall having seen the first RT endorsement of a Republican in a statewide or higher contest aside from one very half hearted mention of Warner. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me.
I guess the most frustrating aspect is knowing it will never change. I remember seeing an ad for an editorial writer in [I think] Editor & Publisher for the RT that made specific mention of seeking someone comfortable in a "progressive" editorial setting. While not blatantly saying "no Irish need apply" it pretty much slams the door in the face of anyone who might mistakenly think they can challenge the status quo of all leftist [Democrat] all the time.
Landmark should thank their lucky stars that the capital costs involved in starting a daily newspaper are so high. One to two thirds of your readership could be gone in a week if a daily conservative editorial voice were available in the area.
Comment by kaz — November 2, 2008 @ 10:27 am
The lack of McCain commentary may also be reflective of the readers. My parents cancelled their subscription to the RT years ago because of the strong liberal slant. I'm sure that others have done the same. Given that, it would be possible that there are far fewer conservative readers of the paper, which would translate to fewer McCain-supportive commentaries.
As mentioned above, I don't think the endorsement would surprise anyone. It would either be Obama or no endorsement.
Comment by Ed S. — November 2, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Here's the weasel clause that may explain the lack of McCain letters. The RT rejects letters they say "have factual errors or contain unsubstantiated information".
So, as in posts here, if someone mentions Obama's radical associations or socialist tendencies, the Times simply says those allegations are unfounded, even though evidence of both charges is plentiful.
If I write a letter that said "Palin is a proven reformer." The RT will say. Nix! She lied about her reforms. Not publishing.
Therein lies the kicker. The RT will simply take a letter harmful to Obama or helpful to McCain, and declare it unpublishable because of "unsubstantiated allegations".
Neat system, isn't it, where the opponent is also the arbiter.
Comment by Josh — November 2, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
No doubt, Ed S.
My wife and I finally decided to subscribe to at least the Sunday paper a few months ago. When that subscription expires soon, we have no plans to renew.
Comment by Jack — November 2, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Jack,
Funny, that's what my husband and I did. And as expiration hit goodbye delivery of Roanoke Times.
Comment by Christina — November 2, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
It is certainly much easier to ignore opinions you don't agree with, or to rail against those who present them. The trouble with that is you only ever get one side of an issue. And, yes, there is definitely more than one side to most of the issues facing us. Of course, if you aren't willing to accept there is a view of the world other than your own I guess there is no reason to learn all sides of an issue.
On a daily basis these past two weeks, I have made it a point to read a number of both pro-Obama and pro-McCain sources including their own official websites. I have seen some things about McCain that I like. Obama is not perfect and I have seen some things about him I do not like. But, on balance, I have concluded Obama is the best choice. I have tried to understand McCain's supporters but I have only seen mud-slinging at Obama. Folks have been given every opportunity to present a logical, issue-based case for McCain, but insulting pro-Obama posters is the norm instead.
On Tuesday, we will see who has convinced America.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — November 2, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Joe (not the plumber),
I still get both sides of the issue. I'm just not paying some liberal newspaper to give it to me. I read it online.
Won't be long before everybody realizes that you can get every single thing the newspaper has to offer online for free.
This is big-time off topic.. but could someone from the newspaper please explain the value of the newspaper these days? What can we get from a paid subscription that we cannot find online (and I'm not just referring to this site, but the web in general).
Comment by Jack — November 2, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Per Joe (not the plumber): "It is certainly much easier to ignore opinions you don't agree with, or to rail against those who present them. The trouble with that is you only ever get one side of an issue."
Where then is a loyal reader of the RT supposed to find any favorable analysis of this mysterious other side of the issue you speak of? If you suggest other sources, why should one pay the RT good money for force feeding their view? Wouldn't there be other sources every bit as valid for the left that didn't involve tacitly approving the RT editorial stance by giving them money?
I wonder what would happen to RT sales and revenues if the editorial space was given over totally to the public's opinion. Eliminate the institutional voice and battling columnists and let the people write letters to hash it out on their own without Big Brother putting his helpful thumb on the scale.
While there's still the problem with the AP's slanting of many of their stories in the hard news section, perhaps the fact that other papers are discontinuing the service will give them pause.
Comment by kaz — November 2, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
I never said you go to one source for all of your information. I'm not even advocating you get the RT. But, the danger of refusing to read sources that you don't agree with is that, after a while, you only read things that fit pre-conceived notions. That is not healthy when making decisions about complex issues.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — November 2, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Joe you jump to an assumption that is larger than reality.
When my parents canceled their subscription, they did not shun differing thoughts. On the contrary, they continue to to discuss differing opinions with others. What they *did* do was discontinue financial support for a paper that largely conflicted with a number of their beliefs.
Glad that you've made your election choice. I can say you haven't seen mud-slinging at Obama (or insulting of Obama posters) from me, only legitimate reasons that I will not vote for him. If you hang out here for any length of time, you'll find there are only a handful of regular poster. Therefore, it's a very small sample, and you'll likely have better luck should you choose to open your window to a larger sampling of voters.
Comment by Ed S. — November 2, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Ed,
I had this same conversation with an e-mail correspondent today, who essentially indicated he would like to see us go out of business because of our liberal beliefs.
That is incomprehensible to me. Even if you disagree with our editorials vehemently, recognize that they occupy only about one-eighth or so of the space that we make available every day for others to offer their opinions. We are a vehicle for conversation, but some would like the entire vehicle to go away simply because they disagree with a small portion of what gets said.
That makes no sense to me.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 2, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
Dan, That is the sad reality I see so often: small minded , less educated, threatened folks, "comfortable" with what they have amassed.
Fearful that others are trying to take their possessions away. Fear that is perpetuated by a political party whose only method of motivating it's "comfortable" base is by perpetuating the fear.
For the second time today, thank you H.L. Mencken, "When intellect is not appreciated, he said, "all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum."
They can cancel their subscriptions, if they want, but they are inevitably setting themselves up to fail in the long run. A mediocre populace is doomed in the long run.
Comment by Joe — November 2, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
Wow Joe, condescend much?
That's one of the problems many people have with liberals. They assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be ignorant, uneducated or uninformed. There seems to be no allowance for the possibility that an intelligent well-informed person might hold different beliefs.
Comment by C Ramsey — November 2, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
"But, the danger of refusing to read sources that you don't agree with is that, after a while, you only read things that fit pre-conceived notions."
True enough as far as it goes. I do read other viewpoints.
What I find risible is the notion I should encourage with silence and money the daily trumpeting of YOUR point of view in the area's largest daily paper. I've no doubt you would be every bit as irritated as I if you knew the morning paper would bring some opinion you consider foolish or hypocritical [ala the recent endorsements] and guaranteed to raise your blood pressure.
That, with the added knowledge that it will never change unless forced by circumstance is, I believe one of the driving factors in nationwide readership drops. We conservatives know [or at least this one does] that we don't have all of the right answers all of the time. Acknowledgment by the editorial board that the liberals don't have a patent on 'right' would go a long way towards mending fences. As long as the RT board treats the right side of the political divide as a group of barbarians whose stances are to be routinely disparaged on every issue at every turn, and whose leaders are always considered somehow substandard when compared to the liberals they run against it will matter little to the readers how small of a space the editorials consume. As one doesn't have to eat a whole meal to determine that it is 'bad'; neither does the reader have to tolerate continual slaps at their belief system for the sake of getting news. The market for information and opinion is now global.
That aside, I confess that after living here so long and being generally dismissive of the tortured reasoning behind so many of the RT's editorials I have started using them as a negative indicator. If I'm undecided about a political subject, I can reliably count on the RT editorial board to get it wrong. If they harp on it incessantly, they're usually very wrong.
Comment by kaz — November 3, 2008 @ 1:05 am
C Ramsey, "They assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be ignorant, uneducated or uninformed. There seems to be no allowance for the possibility that an intelligent well-informed person might hold different beliefs".
I think this is exactly the logic people use when they cancel their subscription to the newspaper because someone 'disagrees' with them. Come on, can you be any more knee jerk? Talk of cutting off your arm to spite yourself! This will always be, in my book, stupid.
Comment by Joe — November 3, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Joe,
"small minded , less educated, threatened folks, "comfortable" with what they have amassed." - Quite telling from someone that claims to take in multiple viewpoints. Did you say that you took opposing viewpoints into consideration, or just considered them below your superior being? If you want to talk about personal experience, then I can honestly say that I have personally experienced those same traits you list from "liberal" persons. So where does that put us?
Dan,
To my knowledge they never said they wanted RT to go out of business. And understand that I cannot speak for them and any particular reasons. Yes, one could continue to subscribe to the paper, but they found they could get their news elsewhere without financially backing a business that expressed, advertised, and encouraged contrary political beliefs from theirs.
I personally enjoy the discussions here (with exception to mud-slinging such as from Joe above) with you and the rest of the EB. I've found that while the board leans away from my beliefs, for the most part we can have some very interesting discussions, such as those we had on the presidential debate nights. I'm sure the business does receive some revenue just from the fact that I visit the web site and ads are downloaded with the other content. Part of the issue on some minds is...if the primary goal of the paper is reporting news, then why even potentially "taint" that news with the expression of bias? Does the paper receive more revenue from printing the editorials than it loses by doing the same? Why not forego the editorials for more news coverage?
I have no idea where the answer lies, and I doubt you could tell me openly if I hit upon the correct option. Some would say the paper's owners want to use the medium to express their personal beliefs, in an effort to spread it to the readership. Perhaps an editorial section is just something that always "was" and is included out of tradition. Who knows.
Either way, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Their subscription is gone because the paper chose to print political beliefs. Like I said, I doubt any of it was a wish that the paper fail, just that they didn't want their money to support it. But that doesn't mean that they, or I, shun conversations or thought that is contrary to our beliefs. In fact, when I move back to southwestern VA, I'd gladly meet you in Roanoke, buy you a cup of coffee, and have a great discussion on why all of my ideas or your ideas are the greatest.
But I likely wouldn't take you to Kinko's and pay for a stack of copies of Dan's Manifesto.
Comment by Ed S. — November 3, 2008 @ 9:56 am
I think it's a bit ironic that a lot of conservatives deride folks for getting their news primarilly from shows like Entertainment Tonight or Extra, or other sources they deem as biases or fluffy, yet it seems that most conservatives get their news from right-wing blogs or AM talk radio which is likely more biased and less objective than most other sources. I don't know too many conservatives that will listen to NPR or watch some of the network news to see what folks of other persuasions say to filter through what both sides spout and find the truth that lies somewhere in the middle. But, there also aren't a lot of liberals who will attempt to sit through an AM talk shows so I'm not sure people on either side really know the whole truth. They know the truth as filtered, chopped, dehdryated, and rehydrated by people on their respective sides.
Comment by Other John — November 3, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Ed S. I would say that this means we disagree. Is that okay with you?
Comment by Joe — November 3, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Joe, certainly. There will be items that we agree on from time to time. No matter who is elected tomorrow, I expect we will have some spirited discussions.
Of course you now realize you have every right to call me out if you see me mud-slinging. It is my hope that your memory is as short as mine.
Comment by Ed S. — November 3, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Kaz, There is an easy solution to your dilemma of feeling you are being "force fed". Don't read the opinion pages. Simple enough! Flip over them.
I read opinion and commentary in order to see and understand different views. I disagree with as many as I agree with. I certainly am not going to lose any sleep because the newspaper opinion does not match my world view.
I will never understand why people are so threatened by differing points of views.
Comment by Joe — November 3, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Newflash:
Roanoke Times Doesn't Endorse Its Candidate Barack Obama.
Comment by Henry — November 3, 2008 @ 10:51 am
From joe (not the plumber) to Joe re # 21: Amen
Comment by joe (not the plumber) — November 3, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Why should I have to pay for the pages to skip over them? Why should I, or anyone else, subsidize the publication of your opinion - assuming it's the same as the editorial board you seem determined to defend? Would you be so dismissive of the situation if the RT reliably denigrated your point of view on a daily basis?
There is a thought though. I wonder if there would be a market for an RT edition with no editorial pages? Call it the Joe Friday edition - "Just the facts" - and sell it at a discount since it will be two pages shorter.
And for the record, I'm in no way, shape or form "threatened" by differing opinion.
Call it fatigue. I'm just irritated that it's been the same blinking thing day after day, week after week for 20 years and shows no sign of ever being changed by anything but raw economic power. As noted in another posting, neither side is always right, but one would never know liberals were anything but perfect [and conservatives anything but Neanderthal] if all one had as a guide was the RT editorial page or certain posters. "small minded , less educated, threatened"? Those descriptors aren't going to put you in the running for Miss Congeniality.
Comment by kaz — November 3, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
kaz,
I would still buy it and I would be writing letters and comments on a daily basis like many here. Although, I would try to be a bit more civil than some who post now.
Comment by Joe(not the plumber) — November 3, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Joe (ntp),
Thereby hangs the tale. Dan gets 700 odd words a day to present his side. At best I could hope for 950 words in a month [1 letter, 1 op-ed] to try to cover a plethora of targets.
I have had email conversations with Dan in the past. Needless to say, nothing was settled. The philosophical divide there is more like a chasm. If we ever sat down for a beer, I suspect the only subjects we could discuss without rancor are sports and women. If he's a Cowboy's fan, we may be down to one subject.
Additionally, Dan gets paid to take the slings and arrows that go with being on the editorial board, I don't. Since my last name is fairly distinctive, I've started posting here semi-anonymously. The last time I spoke out in the paper [many years ago], I ended up on the receiving end of some rather bilious letters and a couple of those oh-so-lovely 3AM phone calls from folks on the 'tolerant' left. I have since promised the spouse that I won't go down that road again, so my options are limited.
Lest I leave you with a misunderstanding, I am a regular paper subscriber, though that may change to weekend only after the first of the year. And it's not about the editorial page. The RT may be the next victim of a too busy day. Too little time before work and too much has happened since the day began to consider the paper anything but 'stale' by the time I get home. It's getting hard to justify daily delivery for the Sudoku and crossword. I'm part of that forgotten target audience for an evening paper.
Comment by kaz — November 3, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
The RT and its sister pubs are not in the best of shape. The internet is chewing away at their income. It's a shame. I love good newspapers. The Winston-Salem Journal is my all time favorite.
The Roanoke Times does a really good job with local stories. But cheerleading on national issues is silly. It's Roanoke, not Washington. Don't imagine yourself bigger than you are.
Comment by Henry — November 3, 2008 @ 8:58 pm