Tabbs’ Restaurant in Riverview was the setting for this morning’s candidates forum. Hosted by the League of Women Voters, there was a decent crowd at this 7am (!) meeting.
My table mates this morning were a mixed couple – one a Democrat and the other a Republican, although initially, I didn’t know which of them was which. Neither of them had previously attended a candidates forum. The husband thanked me for calling out Nick Rerras, when he dodged a question that was asked of him. I asked them both afterwards if their position on the candidates had changed as the result of this brief encounter. Both said no, but the wife said she was a more strongly in favor of her chosen candidate after hearing them speak.
I’ve been to so many of these candidate forums now that I can probably give each candidate’s positions on a number of issues. (And I have a pretty good sense of how a candidate’s forum should be run. This morning’s was not well done.) Nevertheless, every time I attend one I learn something new. Mostly, it’s about the process of engaging the public, something that is of utmost importance to me. I strongly believe that we should have an informed electorate, not just folks who mindlessly go to the polls and push buttons for A or B based on party affiliation, race or gender, or some other factor that has nothing to do with who is best qualified to serve.
As I listened to Nick Rerras bob and weave this morning, ofttimes stretching the truth, it occurred to me again that the voting public has to take so many extra steps to try to determine the veracity of a candidate’s statements. And once again, I thought about how the newspaper fails miserably in helping the public understand the complexities of governance, of our democracy, by simply reporting whatever they think the news is and not going deeper into the candidate’s stances and claims. I continue to see it as dereliction of duty. The blogs try to fill the void – and I certainly appreciate it when a candidate uses information I put on this blog – but none of the blogs have the reach that the newspapers have. Besides, there are a whole lot of folks out there who have never even heard of a blog, much less read one.
Another reason that I attend these forums is that it gives me a chance to see the evolution of thought by the candidates as they gather more and more information. It’s kind of like watching a flower come into bloom. I particularly enjoy the new candidates. I love their enthusiasm for the issues, for the people. They have not yet been corrupted by the power of being an elected representative, by the positions of party, and are so earnest in their naivete.
And I guess I also learn about me. The Pilot talks about its bias in favor of incumbents, and on intellectual and practical levels, I understand that. But I am biased in favor of challengers, on a totally different, more emotional level. Perhaps it is because I understand what it is like to step out there and run and how much it takes to do so. I hold incumbents – who should know better – to a different standard than I do challengers. I am much more forgiving of a challenger’s mistakes or misstatements than I would ever be of an incumbent.
I still believe that the reason someone runs for office is because they honestly believe that they can do a better job than the person occupying the office now. That willingness is a plus for our democracy and something that should be encouraged.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
In defense of the Virginian-Pilot (and I *never* thought I’d write that phrase) I feel like their editorial board has done a good job this cycle calling out a number of candidates on a select group of issues: specifically the non-starter idea of capping real estate assessments as a means of controlling taxes, and illegal immigration. They’re also pretty fair in sharing the blame for bad ideas when it comes time to editorialize on an issue: I recall that they blamed Republicans for floating false promises on local solutions to immigration problems while simultaneously criticizing Governor Kaine for punting on the issue with a oversimplified rebuttal.
The problem I have with local newspapers is that you actually have to go to the editorial page to get any sense of perspective on a candidate’s stance on the issues. The actual news articles on a campaign do very little to help the reader interpret any claims made therein. One can be generous and say that a possible explanation for this is that the reporters who write these stories are so worried about letting anything that might be construed as editorializing creep into their stories that they’ll refrain from calling out even the most blatant lie or contextualizing a dubious claim with discrediting information. A cynic might say that they’re simply lazy, bad journalists. I’m not prepared to make that leap just yet.
But you’re right, Vivian, that the ultimate consequence of this is that a voter has to take several extra steps to be able to make a seriously informed decision about who to vote for. You can’t necessarily make the decision just by reading the A section because there isn’t any context – rather than getting “just the facts,” more often than not you’ll get “just the quotes,” no matter how dubious they might be. You have to flip to the back page of the editorial section to get any context for what you’ve just read in the A or B section. And that leaves aside completely the question of whether you should trust the judgement of the editorial board in the first place.
My solution? Expand the editorial section to provide context for a greater number of stories each day. Consider having an editorial page for each section of the paper instead of only one editorial section–for instance, an editorial column in the Hampton Roads section dedicated solely to articles which also were printed in that section. Within each article that has an associated editorial, inform the reader prominently what page they can find said editorial on.
Heck NO, the Virginan Pilot tells me their opinion way to much as it is. Just report the news, I will decide how I feel about it. As for voters not getting the information they desire, well, that is their faul. They “google” everything else. Every member of the Legislature has a voting record and it is on line. Most candidates have web sites, if you are not getting the answers you are looking for, well that is your fault for not looking.
This might partly have been what you were getting at in the third to last paragraph, Vivian, but I think it’s also interesting to watch and see if they improve their candidate skills (polishing up their answers, figuring out the time length for speeches — when you’re dealing with fundraisers, etc — shaking hands and interacting with crowds, etc) from forum to forum.
Generally speaking, though, I think this is more important to watch when you’re dealing with the primary races and one of the factors in your vote might be whether or not the candidate can win in the general.
sj – there are a lot of voters who are not online, so there has to be a way to reach them. I talked to someone today that I consider pretty smart, yet she had been led to believe (by the mail she has received) that a certain candidate was not someone she should vote for. After I talked to her, laid out the candidate’s positions and, because it was important to her, the candidate’s personality, she decided to change her vote. Had the newspaper actually provided some depth on the candidate’s positions, I don’t think she would have made the mistake of thinking otherwise.
Bryan – it’s important to me even outside of the primary. And yes, they improve as a candidate but they haven’t become – at least to me – politicians yet. (I think there is a big difference between politicians and elected representatives.)
Vivian…it would seem appropriate to me for knowledgeable constituents to hold their leaders accountable whenever the truth is stretched no matter what party the candidate is a member of. Until citizens demand truth I believe we will continue to get a bunch of lies…..if they aren’t held accountable and they can lie and get away with it…..and worse…they win the election…what’s going to get them to “honestly” deal with anyone?
As far as “corporate news….” If news is not reported within a contextual framework (which is well researched and points out “factual errors/stretching the truth/ and lying”) than it is utterly useless and becomes simply a microphone for politicians to use to spread lies, propaganda and then they are never held accountable….
In fact, the corporate news actually “beat the drums” to send our nation into a very ill advised illegal invasion of Iraq….they did not present a balanced picture…did not interview many educated, knowledgeable experts that could have told the story of “faulty, cherry picked intelligence”….and this corporate media is doing the same thing again with Iran……
We don’t need stenographers simply printing the falsehoods….we need investigative journalism that researches and speaks truth to anyone in power who is “stretching” the truth.