Fairness?

Eric Edits · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:10 pm

One of my senators is speaking tonight (Tuesday) at the Dem Convention. Our political reporter is writing a story that will include comments from his opponent in the campaign. I think including the opponent's comments is a misguided attempt at fairness. Should an incumbent's opponent get a chance to respond to everything the incumbent does, even if it's unrelated to the campaign?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:33 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Eric Edits:
Should an incumbent's opponent get a chance to respond to everything the incumbent does, even if it's unrelated to the campaign?<hr></blockquote>No, no more than the NRA should be called for every story about gun control or NARAL should be asked for a comment for every story about abortion.

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:43 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Eric Edits:
Should an incumbent's opponent get a chance to respond to everything the incumbent does, even if it's unrelated to the campaign?<hr></blockquote>I think I agree with blanp, but what about a short sidebar -- several inches at most -- giving the opponent's opinion/critique of the speech?[ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]

juliette14 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:29 pm

I disagree. That sets a precedent of tracking down the opponent whenever one party in a race makes a speech. Why assume the opponent even saw the speech? I see no problem with saying the opponent "has said this plan won't work" or talking very briefly about comments s/he has made in the past on the issues. Full coverage seems ridiculous.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Including a brief reply from the senator's opponent seems to me to be justified on news value alone. Unless of course, which wouldn't surprise me, the senator's speech or the reply was a pile of pollywaffle.

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:53 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Blythe:
I disagree. That sets a precedent of tracking down the opponent whenever one party in a race makes a speech. Why assume the opponent even saw the speech? I see no problem with saying the opponent "has said this plan won't work" or talking very briefly about comments s/he has made in the past on the issues. Full coverage seems ridiculous.<hr></blockquote>I understand your point, and I don't favor getting opposing comment every single time. But in this case we're talking about a speech at the Democratic National Convention. If it's in prime time, that gives the candidate a huge forum. I think maybe it's only fair to let the opponent comment.

juliette14 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:05 pm

Maybe so. It just strikes me as a bit strange. Speakers are invited to speak at national conventions to drum up support for the party at a national level. It does give them a lot of publicity, but they don't tend to be pushing their individual agendas as candidates as much -- it's one big party lovefest. I suppose if the person were asked to speak, and discussed in detail issues related to his or her own campaign, that would be grounds for a sidebar. It's certainly not unfair to let the opposing candidate chime in.

Eric Edits · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:09 pm

I don't think fairness necessarily dictates tit-for-tat coverage. So if the challenger speaks to a certain group but doesn't directly mention the incumbent, should the incumbent get to comment?It seems absurd to me to call that fairness. It's more like knee-jerk journalism.

Gatekeeper · **Posted:** Wed Jul 28, 2004 2:09 am

^^^Is this the same opponent who wants to travel with the good senator on his annual "tour of every county in the state" in August?Gatekeeper-30-

majorbabs · **Posted:** Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:40 am

I think if you're reporting the news, you report what he said and stop there. I would guess the majority of readers know that a speech, particularly one at a political convention, is the opinion of the giver or the political party with which he/she is associated and not hard fact. (Well, maybe those who believe Oliver Stone movies won't know.) You are reporting what he said, not interpreting the veracity of his statements. (Unless of course I've misunderstood and this is not a straight news story.)If we had to balance every politico's statements, think how hard mayor's races and city council decision stories would be for those at smaller papers.My two cents. Thanks for listening.

Eric Edits · **Posted:** Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:51 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gatekeeper:
^^^Is this the same opponent who wants to travel with the good senator on his annual "tour of every county in the state" in August?Gatekeeper-30-<hr></blockquote>That's him.

Testy Copy Editors

Fairness?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links