The Pilot’s policy on endorsements

In an op-ed piece today, editorial page editor Don Luzzatto explained the policy of The Virginian-Pilot on endorsements. Theoretically, the article is about why they endorse:

What we hope to do, with all of our editorials, is encourage substantive debate on the issues of the day, the kind of conversation that continues in the vibrant letters column on the opposite page.

[…]

Why do something we know will polarize our readers?

Because it’s our job. Freedom of the press is listed in the First Amendment because the founders knew that independent media were critical to a strong democracy. Informing people about an election — including providing our opinions on the candidates — is among the most important things we do.

As a proxy for our readers, we have largely unfettered access to the candidates, something increasingly rare in a managed media world. We’ve conducted more than a hundred hours of detailed interviews, and we’ve asked an untold number of questions. We’ve tried to get beyond the platitudes to examine and explore the issues that are important to all of us, especially in Hampton Roads.

But the piece also explains the how:

There are no hard or fast rules, but we do proceed from a few premises: We tilt toward incumbents unless they’ve done something bad or been particularly ineffective. Seniority matters, especially in the General Assembly. So does a good mind and seriousness of purpose. We hope that a candidate’s opinions on the major issues match our own, but that’s only one factor among many.

There you have it. Take that into consideration when you read the forthcoming endorsements.