My present stance: Given the inherent vitriol, presidential endorsements are more fraught than they are worth. Reporters at older papers literally get grief about endorsements their company's editorial board made 40 years ago. CDN doesn't make those.
The other side: Many readers say endorsements in local races can be beneficial, if they're approached correctly. Our approach here is to use endorsements not to grandstand or dip into partisan argument, but to analyze and inform.
We interview candidates in person, consider their records and watch them in the public square. At the end of that weeks-long process, CDN Editorial Board members — myself, Publisher Cynthia Pope and consultant Dean Wright, a veteran journalist and ethics adviser — make a consensus decision.
You can read those here, or in our printed Voter Guide.
Our endorsement process is separate from our election news coverage: reporters don't weigh in on them; we expect our choices to have zero impact on their own coverage (much of which is complete before we ever publish our endorsements). Our intent is to inform and offer reasoned judgments on candidates, analyzing strengths and weaknesses we've observed.
As I've written previously, choosing candidates has become increasingly difficult over CDN's nearly five-year history because the quality of candidates keeps rising. Several races this year were near tossups. We hope readers find them instructive.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário