PressEthic

This election season The San Francisco Chronicle has decided to shake things up a bit. Instead of printing traditional one-on-one interviews with candidates and then endorsing one of them, the newspaper will host hour-long candidate debates before the paper’s editorial board. The newspaper’s broadcast partner CBS 5 will then broadcast these debates live through streaming video, according to an editor's note:

“One of our goals is to give California voters a chance to compare candidates in campaigns that have a hard time competing for attention in a state with three big media markets and 36 million people.”

“By opening this window into our process, another of our objectives is to allow voters to evaluate us -- our fairness, our thoroughness and our focus on the issues that matter to Californians.”

I thought this sounded noble enough, and the debates may even provide lesser-known candidates with some much needed, free exposure. I was also impressed that the paper was willing to embrace a more transparent model, potentially opening itself up to a host of unpleasant charges – including bias as the elections progress.

So I was disappointed to read the following paragraph:

“All but one statewide candidate appears to be making a good-faith effort to participate in this experiment in open democracy. Claude Parrish, the Republican nominee for treasurer, declined our invitation -- despite a follow-up personal appeal from me on his voice mail. It's a curious decision on his part, to say the least, in view of the advantage Democrat Bill Lockyer enjoys in fundraising and in the polls. One would think that Parrish would jump at a no-cost opportunity to present himself to the electorate.”

The paper had thus far talked a good game about informing California voters about the issues that are important to them and allowing readers to evaluate the fairness of reporting through the debates. Yet, here the paper seemed to negate everything it had previously said, by singling out by name a wayward candidate and then critiquing and questioning his refusal to submit to the debate.

This doesn’t sound like fair reporting to me. It sounds more like more like an ex-girlfriend with an ax to grind. While lauding itself for undertaking a novel idea, the paper seems to have reverted back to what it was trying to avoid. The paper may no longer issue candidate endorsements, but it’s apparently okay to paint a candidate as unfavorable to readers, by insinuating a lack of intelligence and alluding to campaign money troubles. And the debates haven’t even begun.

Apparently, even the best laid plans veer awry sometimes.