Editor’s note: The Daily normally runs a media literacy column by Sarah Cavanah, interim executive director of Oklahoma Scholastic Media and former Daily staff writer, every week to give readers a behind-the-scenes look at The Daily and media coverage in general.
Civil discourse in the media does happen. Unfortunately, it often happens behind closed doors.
Monday, I got the rare opportunity to watch as The Daily decided which gubernatorial candidate it would endorse. Most newspapers issue endorsements before elections, but most don’t let anyone see how they come to their decisions.
Not every paper issues endorsements. In recent years, the paper has gone back and forth on the policy. After all, the philosophy of American newspapers is to provide information so the public can make informed decisions, not to tell the public which decisions to make.
I know something about the candidates and issues in this election. But other than to assure us that they are “conservative,” Oklahoma candidates this year have been a little low on specifics in their statements.
The Daily put out a great election guide, but even then newspaper objectivity can sometimes get in the way of common sense. Newspapers hold that they have to give both sides time, even if one side is patently ridiculous and completely irrelevant (looking at you, “No Sharia Law” question).
Many people think it’s perfectly reasonable to let journalists who spend all day researching, talking, writing and reporting about politics to give their more biased opinions. And that’s what I took away from watching The Daily debate the candidates for governor — they know their stuff.
Listening to some of The Daily’s editorial board list of possible outcomes of either side winning, including expected countermoves of minor players in Oklahoma’s legislature, reminded me of what the Sunday political talk shows used to be like. There was fair assessment, members playing devil’s advocate and no concern for how someone down the line would take something out of context and ruin a career.
No one cried. No one insulted each other. No one pandered to some small but influential group. They discussed — reasonably. The only heated moment came when they were debating whether using an aspect of one of the candidates’ past was fair journalistically or important for the endorsement. Many thought it couldn’t be proven conclusively and another thought that it was frustrating to not be able to point out what they saw as a major hypocrisy in one candidate’s campaign position.
In the end, though, they came to agreement and no one called anyone any names. The endorsement ran in Tuesday’s paper. You may not agree with The Daily’s position, but I can assure you the editors put a lot of thought and effort into it. I only wish we could see more of that process every day, instead of the unfounded accusations, ratings and reader grabs and general viciousness that have seeped into American media like a toxic sludge.
— Sarah Cavanah, professional writing and journalism graduate
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Eagles101 1 year, 7 months ago
FYI... Nobody cares who the OU Daily endorses for OK Gov.
DancingTableLeg 1 year, 7 months ago
@Eagles101: That's why 171 people shared the endorsement on Facebook, right? Got a couple of Tweets, too.