Imagine if lawyers learned their trade by defending axe murders on their first day of class. Or if doctors did open heart surgery. But that is exactly what journalists do. We learn our craft – whether reporting, editing or designing – in front of tens of thousands of readers every day, day in and day out.
This election year is our axe murderer, our open heart surgery. We feel fortunate to be working at the Emerald during this historic time. We take our responsibilities seriously. That is why we also take accusations of bias so seriously, which have been leveled at the Emerald’s election coverage.
Accusations of bias come with the territory at all newspapers, just like death threats and telephone calls from the mentally ill. Every politically charged story is met with these kinds of accusations. It happens so often that when we get attacked from both Democrats and Republicans at the same time – which is exactly what has happened – we feel as if we are being balanced.
But that is not good enough for us. More often than not, accusations of bias are the product of a lack of transparency or understanding or both. In the interest of becoming more transparent, the Emerald board would like to lay the cards out on the table.
Our editorial board is diverse politically. We have at least one member that supports Kerry and Bush, as well as neither candidate. We have a self-imposed policy of unanimity, meaning the board will not publish an editorial unless all members of the board agree with its conclusions.
This is quite an experiment – given the fierce ideological divisions in the country – and will result either in clever editorials that perfectly articulate our common ground or watered-down editorials that are a waste of time and ink. We will let you decide.
The commentary editor has made every effort to present multiple political sides on the commentary page, and the Emerald encourages all of our readers to write to the paper. However, the bulk of the letters we receive have a liberal slant. In fact, as of today, we have received no publishable pro-Bush letters.
We have developed a strategy for covering the elections that we feel is responsible and an improvement on the coverage traditionally provided – focusing less on the horse-race and more on the issues. Every day for the next two weeks, we will look at a different issue and see where the candidates stand. Following that, we will spend an entire week focusing on the major ballot measures. By focusing on the issues, we hope to give people the information they need to make an informed decision. But we have no desire to influence the election one way or the other.
So far, our coverage has spent more time on Democrats than Republicans, which has been the subject of much discussion. This is a function of how well-organized the Democrats have been on campus in organizing events and speakers.
This is a marked contrast from spring term, when the Republicans were more organized and active. When our coverage reflected that, we were accused of bias.
We will make mistakes, and when we do, we will be open about it. But accusations of willful, institutional bias at the Emerald are ignorant and misinformed. So far, our coverage of the presidential election can stand shoulder to shoulder with any college newspaper in the country. If you don’t agree, we welcome your feedback.