Today The Cord released it's annual endorsements for tomorrow's election.
This year we took a slightly different approach and I made the decision that as a newspaper we would endorse one candidate for president, as opposed to the previous five-personal panel we typically have.
This decision was made for several reasons including that very few people on my editorial board have experience covering WLUSU or a deep interest in student politics. People outside of the paper were also asked to give endorsements and when they declined I decided that offering a Cord endorsement was an appropriate choice.
Following the open forum as an editorial board we sat down and discussed this for over an hour. Prior to Tuesday afternoon we did not know which way we were going to go. Kory and Kyle consistently performed well over the election period and either of them would be deserving of our backing.
We could have taken the easy way out. Based on the positives both candidates have we could have published five endorsements: three for Kyle and two for Kory (Kyle had the overwhelming support in the end) and we wouldn't be coming under such harsh criticism.
However, as a newspaper our job is to interpret the facts and form opinions and in this case we came to the opinion that Kyle is the better candidate. Many people are torn between Kory and Kyle in this election and I feel that it is our responsibility as a newspaper to offer them insight into who we feel would make a better president.
Newspapers do this all of the time, including The Globe and Mail's 2008 endorsement of Stephen Harper, and The New York Times endorsement of Barack Obama.
The criticism we have received for doing something daily papers do all of the time seems to be yet another example of people not recognizing the importance and value of an independent media source on campus.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Laura, as was mentioned a number of times in the online comments to the endorsement article, the problems lies not with the Cord making an endorsement but the way in which the endorsement was made. The argument made in support of Kyle and in opposition to Kory is porous and incomplete. A more cogent endorsement would have given the Cord an authoritative voice in the election instead of it becoming the object of derision.
ReplyDeleteThe value of an independent press is lost on no one I've spoken with; on the other hand, they hold the Cord up to a standard that it has unfortunately failed to meet during this election.
I'll preface my comment here with the simple reminder that I did make a comment regarding your endorsement article as well. My comment here will follow similar style in that I have no interest arguing the merits of your endorsements. Overall I feel the outcry was harsh, but sometimes we all hear that.
ReplyDeleteMy only admonishment to yourself Laura, and the Cord as a whole is this statement:
"The criticism we have received for doing something daily papers do all of the time seems to be yet another example of people not recognizing the importance and value of an independent media source on campus"
You've attempted to end your article by admonishing the general student for being ignorant of the "facts" as you understand them. Simply put yourself on the receiving end of this commentary in regards to matters within the institution or the Students' Union.
You made a decision to depart from tradition and you did it because you thought it was right. I respect and admire that; however, blaming the students when your intrepid new structure meets harsh criticism is not the right response.
Ultimately your audience will determine what is acceptable journalism for them. It's a purely subjective decision of which they are the only arbiter. Sometimes we just have to take a few bruises when negative reactions exceed our expectations.
Cheers,
Matt Park