Some people take politics more seriously than others. And even though there are relatively few college students this election cycle sapped by apathy, those who must preface their debates with “rules of engagement” too are in the minority.
But at issue here is not the American involvement in Iraq, it is not the economy, it is not Kerry versus Bush. At least not yet.
No, the simple rules — two-minute opening statements by each member of the editorial board, a preliminary vote, a 10-minute free-for-all discussion, and a final vote — are to determine whether The Daily should make endorsements in the upcoming election, and, if so, what shape said endorsements should take.
There are various issues at play here, but at heart seems to be the observation by reporter Tim Porter in the October/November issue of the American Journalism Review: “(Endorsements) have some value to some people some of the time in some circumstances, but no one can say how much to whom and when — for sure.”
A number of members of The Daily’s editorial board, a body of 15 editors who meet twice a week to discuss newsroom operations and pen editorials analyzing news coverage, saw no reason to endorse any candidate.
Complaints about endorsements primarily hinge upon one of two points: The process is an exercise in futility (“People throw away newspapers, they line hamster cages with them,” said Sara Klieger, a Medill junior and design editor), or it is a potential indicator of bias (Medill senior Malavika Jagannathan, The Daily’s city editor, said, “Our expertise would be derived from our personal lives, not from reporting”).
So at the risk of being called a puppet of the liberal media, what compelling reason is there for The Daily — or any college newspaper — to endorse political candidates?
I could give a Medill answer: The Daily is seeking to “uphold the public trust,” to “advocate for our readers.” But in the eyes of Daily editors, this process is less about enforcing their views upon the public, more about provoking thoughtful debate in a hotly contested — and often polarizing — election.
Campus Editor Seth Freedland, a Medill senior, arrived with a prepared statement, gesticulating as he rehearsed the argument in a rapid-fire monologue: “This newspaper has reported, analyzed and edited for years on issues from No Child Left Behind to police funding, to Pell Grants to Cuba trips … And at a time with so many undecideds and swing state voters at NU, we owe it to our readers to say, ‘This choice matters. Politics matter. You, the voter, matter.'”
And perhaps there is latitude for taking a stance on issues after thoughtfully interpreting everyday coverage — it’s done everyday in newsrooms across America.
“It’s all part of a package,” said Elaine Helm, a Medill senior and editor in chief of The Daily. “Endorsements complement our news coverage. It all comes down to how you phrase the endorsement — we’re certainly capable of making coherent arguments.”
Though the board ultimately voted — nine to six — to endorse candidates before Nov. 2, three members chose to abstain from the process. But in the broad view, internal debates such as this are of little immediate consequence.
Now the real onus is on you, the reader. Is The Daily’s debate meaningful? Will you take trusty old page six with you to the polls — or will you use it to line your hamster’s cage?
Public Editor Torea Frey is a Medill senior. Readers’ concerns should be sent to [email protected].
