FeedMedia: JS questions accuracy of someone else’s endorsements. Seriously
December 10, 2007 in Watchdog Tags: Ardis, endorsements, JSEB, Ransburg
I’m chuckling over today’s Word on the Street column. Karen McDonald takes a look at Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis’ endorsement for Jim McConoughey for Congress. The column leads with the ironic details (reported here earlier) that Ardis just happened to serve with former City Council member John Morris for eight years, and that Ardis’ own sister works for Aaron Schock.
She also concluded that Ardis’ endorsements don’t have much of a track record. Only 3rd District council member Bob Manning seems to have won election.
The Journal Star really ought to tread carefully when mentioning anyone else’s track record for picking the winners.
The Journal Star, after all, endorsed Dave Ransburg over Ardis in the 2005 elections. Ransburg not only lost, he couldn’t get elected dog catcher these days. In that same election, The Journal Star endorsed Marcella Teplitz, she was soundly defeated by Barbara Van Auken. Also, the JSEB threw its support behind Gale Thetford, who Manning defeated easily. Teplitz seems to have fallen off the face of the Earth and Thetford couldn’t get past the first round when running for an at-large seat on the council.
And it wasn’t as if all the JS did to keep Ransburg, Teplitz and Thetford on the council was to endorse them. The JS went to great pains to portray the effort to rid the Peoria City Council of the its beloved “progressive” wing was rooted in racism.
It backfired, of course. It was almost as if voters looked at who the JS endorsed and made a point to vote for the other guy. Naturally, JSEB boss Mike Baily posted a column a few days later that raised arrogance and cluelessness to a whole new level.
Of course, the JSEB did pick the winning pony when it endorsed Aaron Schock over Bil Spears in the last 92nd Illinois House District race. Of course, its endorsement was full of half-truths and misinformation.
And here’s another difference an endorsement from Mayor Ardis and the Journal Star: Ardis doesn’t hide his identity when he makes an endorsement.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
C’mon, Billy. I assume that with your extensive journalism background you know there is no connection between the editorial page and the newsroom. None.
So what good does it do to compare a newsy item in the WOTS column to anything the editorial page does? It’s apples and oranges.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Heck, about 80% of the time, there’s no connection between the editorial page and reality.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
You’re right CJ. And probably 80 percent of the newsroom would agree with you. That’s why I’ve never understood why Billy often paints the Journal Star with such a wide brush.
The only time I’ve ever seen editorial page writers and reporters hanging out together is if they accidentally bump into one another at the coffee machine.
And sometimes, even that ain’t pretty!
December 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Terry: I was under the impression that the reason JS editorials are unsigned is because the editorials are speaking the entire institution. That’s always been the defense whenever I criticize the unsigned editorial.
If the editorials do NOT speak for the entire organization , including the newsroom, then they ought to slap the name of the author on all editorials.
But the issue of my post isn’t this fictional wall that is supposed to exist between edit page and news page. The issue in my post is whose endorsements are are more worthy of derision, the JESB of the mayor’s/
December 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
AND and to whether news reporting is affected by a desire to be nice to those candidates the JSEB likes … well, we’ve already established here that JS editors frequently change reporters’ copy. It’s not a HUGE leap to assume that it’s done more in favor of those politicians the higher-ups at the paper like more than it is done to to detriment of these favored politicians. I’ve heard to many tales of reporters being taken off a beat because some pol complained to someone in management.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
The editorial board does NOT speak for the newsroom, but rather the corporation as a whole (and there IS a difference, as any journalist knows). The newsroom’s voice is neutral on all things — at least, it should be. I spent 25 years in that newsroom and I absolutely know that to be true. And anyone who says otherwise is either lying or guessing.
All these conspiracy theories I read on the blogs have always made me laugh out loud. Hell, half the time the CITY DESK editors don’t know what the reporters are up to, let alone the editorial page editors!
Now your longstanding argument about whether editorials ought to be signed is a whole other issue, and one I would mostly support. But it doesn’t bother me as much as it does you.
And as far as political endorsements go, I’m of the opinion that NONE of them matter much unless your name happens to be Oprah …
December 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Oh please. I have NEVER seen ONE instance of a reporter being pulled from a beat because they pissed off a politician who then whined to JS management. If you believe that for one minute, then you don’t know the Jack Brimeyer that I know!
People switch beats at the paper all the time. I would challenge you to name one reporter “pulled off a beat” because of politcal pressure. Just one.
And believe me, Billy, I have no reason to stick up for the Journal Star. But I’ll stick up for the truth every time.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Terry: “The editorial board does NOT speak for the newsroom, but rather the corporation as a whole (and there IS a difference, as any journalist knows).”
First: Any journalist who thinks his/her reporting is not affected by the demands of the corporation is fooling her/himself. You really think the newsroom is NOT part of the corporation? Do you really think that the stories are assigned and edited with an eye on the corporate desire to turn as huge a profit as possible?
The only difference is that some corporations have no shame in hiding their corporate biases — FOX comes to mind.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I stand corrected. I meant to state that I know of reporters being co-assigned to beats to satisfy complaints that the current reporter wasn’t as fair to certain politicians that politician would like.
Do you deny THAT?
December 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
First off, be careful lecturing me on how assignments are made at that newspaper, since I was the assignment editor there from 1997 to Jan. 16, 2007. So I know a little bit about how assignments are handed out. And they are NOT made with any political pressure whatsoever. In fact, I can honestly say that in 10 years, I was NEVER told who to have cover something. Not one single time. And that’s the truth.
And saying someone was re-assigned because they weren’t “fair” is a far cry from saying someone was pulled from a beat for political reasons. That stuff only happens in the minds of conspiracy theorists and pissed off reporters whining to bloggers over a beer at night.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
As I said. I stand corrected. I was in error as to reporters being removed from a beat. My apologies. Now, can you tell me that you know of no reporter being assigned to a beat because after someone complained about the work of the one already assigned to that beat? I’m not accusing, I just simply want to be clear.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I know you’re not accusing. This is a civil discussion and, frankly, I’m enjoying it.
Of course I know of reporters being removed from beats because of complaints about their work. Why wouldn’t that happen at a newspaper that is trying its level best to provide the best journalism to its readers that it can? But that runs the gamut from environment to business, not just politics. In other words, screwing up is a good way to get re-assigned or demoted at the JS and at every other newspaper in the land.
But I know of NO ONE who has been removed from a beat because of political or advertising pressure. I know of many reporters who have angered many politicians and/or advertisers over the years. I know this because I was often the poor sap who took the angry phone calls. But screwing up facts and not toeing some imaginary line are two totally different things.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Getting back to what I think is the original main point of the post, are endorsements about who is the best candidate or who is more likely to win? I thought it was the former.
Did the Journal Star really think Ed Clark was going to be elected president in 1980 when it endorsed him?
Karen may have this confused, too, as she used the phrase “victorious endorsement.”
Perhaps this is tied to the odd phenomenon I have heard about in which voters allegedly cast their ballots for the candidate a news network has projected as the winner. I have never understood why anyone would do that.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
And THIS is my beef with newspapers (bear in mind that I spend 20 years, off and on) defending the same things I am nor criticizing). How is the reader supposed to know these things. The reporter’s name is on the story, but not the editors who made changed. Complaints about reporters made to editors are considered personnel issues. There’s no transparency, and the news consuming public is much more savvy than in years past and WANTS that transparency.
If I’ve said this once, I said this a hundred times: When the public is denied the information that need to evaluate the truth of what they are being told, they cannot be blamed when they fill in the blanks with speculation. The era in which news consumers are just going to assume that the media is operating with pure hearts, regardless of financial considerations and political bias is OVER.
This is my complaint with unsigned editorials. This is my complaint when bad journalism is defended as “oh, some editor must have changed it.”
But the authors names on opinion pieces!
Put the editors’ names on the things they edit!
Take responsibility, people.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Another story with Schock’s talking points. Go figure. This follows up on the “breaking news” the other day that Shock’s third quarter fundraising was very good. The third quarter ended in September.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I seriously doubt that newspapers will attach an editor’s name to a byline. But I’d venture that most editors actually wouldn’t mind it, since 90 percent of the time the copy is at least a little better AFTER it’s edited.
I’d say that editors somehow “putting” mistakes into stories happens so rarely it’s almost a non-factor. Most editors and reporters I know and worked with at the Journal Star are VERY concerned about the facts and the truth and take every precaution to be sure the published copy is correct.
Sure, sometimes people screw up — reporters and editors. But I can assure you that if an editor is editing mistakes into copy, he or she won’t be an editor for long.
Oh, and who the hell is Ed Clark? Any relation to Lyndon LaRouche?
December 10th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“Perhaps this is tied to the odd phenomenon I have heard about in which voters allegedly cast their ballots for the candidate a news network has projected as the winner. I have never understood why anyone would do that.”
I call it “bandwagon voting,” in which folks feel they are wasting a vote on someone who is going to lose. You know. Like White Sox fans.
Seriously, it’s a sad result of the 24-hour cable news cycle and likely does change election results.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Ed Clark was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1980. The Journal Star was the largest newspaper in the country to endorse him. This was during the Henry Slane era.
BTW, Ed Clark got three votes in Bureau County. Two were my parents.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Even worse than that is the way the primaries go. This year, Illinois moved the primary date back, but in past years, several candidates had already pulled out of the race by the time Illinois voters got a chance to vote. If the candidates don’t do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, they bail, leaving the rest of the states with fewer choices. It’s frustrating. I wish there were a way to have a national primary so everyone’s vote would count.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I’ve always thought having a national primary is an excellent idea. Anyone know the real reason it’s never happened? Is it because less populated states would feel they would have less of an impact on national elections?
Whatever the reason, it’s a damned shame. I too get tired of having fewer choices by the time our primary rolls around.