Yes! Weekly's endorsement issue does not endorse a presidential candidate. I received an anonymous email saying the presidential endorsement was spiked by publisher Charles Womack, allegedly because he is a McCain supporter and did not want his paper to endorse Obama. A subsequent, not-for-attribution interview with another source close to the weekly paper said the same thing.

I called Womack, who said he had "no comment." I asked him again if he had ordered the endorsement spiked, and if so, if that was because he supports McCain. Again, "no comment."

From the tipster:

Charles Womack ordered the staff not to endorse a candidate. In the past, he's tried to spike the entire endorsement issue at the last minute: This year, he successfully nixed the presidential endorsement.

It's easy to guess why: The staff would have reached a consensus supporting Obama, and Womack did not want that. He actually stated he would rather not publish that week than allow the paper to endorse a candidate he disagreed with.

Worse yet, he banned any mention of the endorsement at all. [Editor] Brian Clarey's hands were tied: he couldn't even explain why there was no endorsement. The omission is glaring.

Clarey had no comment.

Seems like an odd place for the publisher of a generally liberal alt-weekly to flex his muscle.

UPDATE: Will a similar divide between publisher and edit staff keep the N&R from endorsing a presidential candidate? Or was the plug pulled in Norfolk before it came to that?

Comments

[Don Moore]

May be they used a North Carolina Ballot - you can't Straight Party here. You got to check Twice or More, if you wish to increase your taxes via Bonds.

[sean coon]

the respect i had for yes! weekly just plummeted. way to kill a brand, charles. i had no idea he aspired to be the george steinbrenner of alt-weekly's.

[Molly McGinn]

That's a damn shame. I truly appreciate the reporting that goes into those endorsements, read the endorsement issue, even carried it into the polling station with me. Still. I knew who I was voting for president before I picked up that paper.

Paper or no paper, it's still my decision.

Thanks for the point, though, Ed. I hope Clarey, Greene, and others of their ink continue local political reporting. It's much needed.

[Roch101]

"Will a similar divide between publisher and edit staff keep the N&R from endorsing a presidential candidate? Or was the plug pulled in Norfolk before it came to that?"

I know they've said they won't be making a presidential endorsement, did they say why? Now that they are no longer up for sale, might they strap on a pair and make an endorsement?

[Brian Clarey]

My statement:
http://yesweeklyblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/editors-statement-on-yes-weekly.html

[sean coon]

presidential endorsements from papers have always struck me as strange, but for a publisher to present an issue dedicated to election season endorsements and not allow the editorial staff to present their presidential endorsement is a glaring case of FAIL.

sure, the local endorsements provide the most useful information, but if info was all that uninformed readers cared about, perez hilton would be a broke, bloated, hollywood gossip queen instead of a rich one.

ok... i've just convinced myself that womack did us all a public service.

[Spag]

N&R says they won't be endorsing a Presidential candidate and that has been their policy since '04.
Without that, I just won't know how to vote.

[Murrow Mind]

What is the difference between a publisher controlling the content of his editorial page and a journalist espousing his own political opinions?

[Joe Killian]

Well, in a strictly journalistic sense it's something like this:

A journalist espousing his political opinions is one man representing himself.

A publisher "exercising control over the content" of the editorial pages of the publication he manages represents the entire publication. A publisher who does that without the consent of an editorial board (or in opposition to the opinions of whatever body exists within that paper to handle endorsements) is at the very least on shaky ethical ground. Unless it is made explicit that the decision is the publisher's reasonable readers will conclude that the endorsement (or lack of endorsement) was made in the same manner as all the other endorsements. That's misleading readers.

Papers where the editor personally makes these decision without the input of the staff or an editorial board exist. But they're not the norm and, among journalists, they're usually less respected.

Ed's tipster alleges that Womack made the decision himself and even said that he would rather not publish the issue than endorse Obama, which he thought would be the staff's preference. Womack won't confirm or deny that. Brian Clary refutes it in his written explanation, saying that whatever body put together all the other endorsements was split and couldn't come to a decision on Obama vs. McCain.

Womack is silent and either Clarey or the tipster are plainly lying.

As for the N&R -- the decision not to endorse a candidate didn't happen in the newsroom and I have no idea what the discussion was above that level or who was involved.

Endorsements can be controversial -- but for my money you make them or you don't. You don't opt out of some of them.

[Murrow Mind]

I wonder if Ed made the call to Womack as a "journalist" seeking comment for a story or as an Obama supporter upset that the paper refused to endorse his preferred candidate?

Joe: When you work for a small newspaper, either family or corporately owned, the publisher is the ultimate authority on what does, and what does not, happen in the newspaper.

Back to my first question, could a reporter who is a ferverent supporter of the Obama campaign, in good journalistic conscience, objectively cover an aspect of a campaign (be it tactics, structure or events) without his/her fervor seeping through?

If so, how does that work? Does one put on a special hat or wear special underclothes that absolves one of their subjective conscience?

[Brian Clarey]

What I said was that "And on the issue of McCain vs. Obama, we could find no common ground."
Make of it what you will... and for chrissake, Killian, at least spell my name right when you besmirch me.
Unrelated: Looking forward to seeing you Friday.

[Joe Wilson]

Brian, whose decision was it to do the hit piece disguised as editorial content on my race? Poor form indeed.

Would you care to illustrate where I "grossly distorted my opponent's record" or what exactly makes me an "untrustworthy maverick"?

Also, since you like me so much, please tell me where is my "combative nature" is "well documented"

In your next to last issue you said it was "hard to find differences" between "the heir apparent" and me, yet today you proclaim we are "opposites indeed"

Your support of Don Vaughan who is, in your publication's own words "with little evidence of leadership or vision" is truly puzzling.

[keith]

Don't worry Joe, Brian calls me hard ass in Yes Weekly

[Spag]

Therein lies the question in the context of YES! Weekly. Is it news or opinion and the standards that Killian refers to rest on that distinction. If the YES! Weekly "news" people are also involved in the opinion, then those standards don't apply because they aren't playing by the rules anyhow.

The N&R maintains that there is a division between its news and opinion sections and the news people play no role in the editorials or endorsements. Of course, I also believe that the N&R does have news people with an agenda beyond just reporting, but that's another story. I take them on their word that their endorsements are made only by the opinion staff. Having gone through that process with the N&R myself when I ran, I never met with anyone in the news division. Sure the opinion staff is tilted in one direction, but that is also a different issue.

The Rhino is a fine example of news mixed with opinion and I suspect that the endorsements are what John and Willy say they are going to be. YES! does not appear to be much different in terms of news people also writing opinion or mixing opinion with the news. Clarey can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Joe Killian]

Brian: Sorry for the dropped E.

I wasn't trying to make a dig at you. I didn't think you were under any obligation to explain the decision. But since you did I (mis)read your statement as saying the staff was divided into more than everyone on one side and one person on the other. Since the tipster had the opposite story, one of them had to be bogus.

I did not properly appreciate the subtlety of the "common ground" thing. My bad. You can give me a good smacking Friday. Then we'll get drunk and you can call me Joe Killan.

Murrow:

Being as objective as you can is just part of the job. If you can't be, you don't take the assignment. If you think you can but you're wrong, your editor takes you off the story. An imperfect system maybe, but it's the same in a lot of professions. I've opted out because of conflicts of interest. Most good reporters have.

As to the publisher wielding ultimate power - sure, you're right. And not just at small or family owned papers. The publisher is usually the representative of whoever owns the paper and CAN overrule an editorial board on content decisions. But I thought we were having a conversation about whether they SHOULD.

When you set up a system by which you make a content decision at a paper -- endorsements, for instance -- reasonable readers are going to assume that that decision is made in that way and not according to the personal politics of one person. If the publisher decides to circumvent or overrule that process for personal reasons and doesn't make that explicit, the readership is being misled.

Better publishers hire a staff they trust and intervene in content as seldom as they possibly can. Intervening for personal reasons hurts the integrity of a publication, hurts your credibility with readers, professional organizations and the staff.

[Joe Killian]

Spag:

When you have a smaller or just a different kind of staff -- like at an alt-weekly -- I don't think you need to apply the standard of a larger daily. Same thing at a college paper. Different sort of publication and the readership knows that.

But I do think it's reasonable to expect consistency.

I think you've got to give Yes! credit for giving so much space to the elections and for making so many endorsements. The take this stuff seriously. They're committed to it. I think the content is better and I take it more seriously because I know one guy didn't make the call on all these things based on his personal views and deliver them to the staff as commands, to be presented to the readership as the position of the paper.

It's certainly better to not make an endorsement than to break with that formula in only one race. But if a paper has a system for making endorsements the publisher shouldn't pop his head into that process to say: "By the way -- if you disagree with me, it doesn't matter how many of you there are or what your arguments may be. Your opinion doesn't count."

I'm not on staff at Yes and I wasn't there when any of this went down. I'm not sure what happened and I sort of feel like a dick Monday morning quarterbacking them for that reason. But I know and like a lot of the Yes staff -- including the editor. I hope their publisher appreciates the work they do there and is looking out for the integrity of the paper first and foremost. I don't work for him, so I feel all right saying all that. It's nothing I wouldn't say to him in person.

[Big L]

The best case scenario here is that the "journalists" get their panties in a wad and walk out and there's one less liberal propaganda piece available.

Have never read that worthless rag, but if the owner is smart enough to bring in some legit journalists who are willing to tell the truth, I might have to give it a shot. It can't be any worse than the propaganda on CNN and MSNBC 24/7.

[Spag]

Joe, in an indirect way a paper like YES! enhances its credibility when it doesn't make endorsements because of the lower division between news and opinion. If they have a point of view anyway, what weight do the endorsements carry? You would expect a liberal paper to make liberal endorsements so who really cares? Is anyone shocked at the Rhino endorsements? I pretty much predicted the N&R endorsements within two races weeks ago, so I wasn't shocked about theirs. But the N&R doesn't have opinion people writing the news, although they may pass off opinion as news at times- but that is a different story.

In short, even if YES! did endorse Obama, would it really make any difference? I'm not trying to rag on Brian's paper because I read it and enjoy it even though I disagree with a lot of the POV. But I just don't see this as that big of a deal because YES! appears to me to be pretty open about its left of center stance, and if a news guys opinion of who should be president is counted then it clouds his/her objectivity in writing the news. If you don't try to hide that (as the Hammers don't), then it's no big deal. But if you allow the same people to wear different hats, you're risking a lot of credibility with your readers if you aren't up front about it- and if you are then your endorsements probably aren't worth much anyway.

[Joe Killian]

Spag:

To me, endorsements aren't about being shocked. An endorsement isn't more powerful to me if I'm not expecting it. An endorsement makes an argument -- it says: "Here's the best person in this race. Here's why. Here are some of the issues and why this person's right on them."

If you dismiss the argument because of its source...well, that's down to you. I think arguments should be taken on their merits.

The thing about endorsements, however they're done, is that they're one way a paper seeks to help its readers make an important decision. As a reader I want to believe that these recommendations happen because a number of smart, committed people at a paper got together in a room and went through a process -- they made arguments, they cited things, they took a vote or came to a consensus. Because readers are better served by that than: "Our publisher says he likes this guy. Therefore, vote for him."

They're even less served if they're not allowed to make an argument with which the publisher disagrees.

I haven't been on an editorial board or handled an endorsement since my college days -- but even then in a group full of people who were more the same than different, there was good argument. There was good back and forth. The argument didn't go before the reader unexamined. I've seen that kind of discussion at editorial level of a few pro papers and it's better for everybody.

[Brian Clarey]

My entire reporting staff is three guys. One of them is me, and another started four weeks ago. We do the best we can with what we've got, and I'm goddam proud of what we're able to accomplish.
Endorsements are important because most Americans don't have the time or wherewithal to closely follow the elections.
Joe wilson: I don't think this is the appropriate forum to discuss why you didn't get our endorsement, but if you're looking for documentation of surly behavior, I suggest you begin by searching this blog and others for your comments. For what it's worth, it was a tough call.
Spag: Our news and opinion sections are clearly delineated. We do our best to make sure our opinion doesn't color the news.
Killian: I'm really looking forward to Friday, but not as much as I'm loking forward to the end of this election.
Big L: I'd like to know where you get your news. Also, what "L" stands for. I'm making an L with my thumb and forefinger right now and holding it to my forehead.

[Lex]

Roch asked above why the N&R isn't making a presidential endorsement. From the 10/24/07 edition (behind pay firewall):

*********
GREENSBORO - In the 2008 presidential election, you won't find endorsements for the nation's next leader in the News & Record.

Newspapers owned by Landmark Communications, which include the News & Record and The Virginian-Pilot, will no longer endorse presidential candidates, officials said Tuesday.

Publishers and editorial page editors for the newspaper chain have discussed for several years whether to drop the endorsements , said Allen Johnson, the News & Record's editorial page editor.

*********

[Spag]

Brian, if you have a reputation however of being liberal/conservative, the endorsements are meaningless because they clearly aren't objective. That's a rule that applies to everyone.

[Roch101]

Thanks, Lex.

[GsoFan]

One example of Joe Wilson lying about Don Vaughan's position.

From Yes Weekly's Article on Joe Wilson

“It’s funny as hell,” he said. “Check it out: The real-estate PAC is backing Don Vaughan with a thousand dollars. The Democratic Party will vote for the transfer tax…. They just gave a thousand dollars to someone who is going to vote against them.”

Wrong, said Vaughan, who described himself as “one-hundred percent against” a tax on real-estate transactions.

Rick Zechini, director of government affairs for the NC Association of Realtors, said many members of the real estate and development sector know and trust Vaughan because of his role in setting up the NC Forum for Research and Economic Education....

Zechini indicated he was surprised that anyone would question Vaughan’s position on the issue.

“He said publicly to a big audience that he’s against the transfer tax"

[Brian Clarey]

Sam: I am a registered independent.

[GsoFan]

Here's another quote from the YES article:

Talking about Vaughan and transportation funding: "The system is set up so that the money goes where it’s needed. Any time one member of the General Assembly can drive money towards his or her district, then they’re using undue influence.”

I want an advocate in Raleigh. I want someone "who can drive money towards his or her district". I want more funding for roads, schools, amd economic development. I'm not willing to let the "system" decide what's best for Greensboro.

[Jordan Green]

Spag, Murrow, et al: I obviously will have no comment on YES! Weekly's lack of an endorsement in the presidential race. And my editor absolutely speaks for me in his commments about the delineation between news and opinion in our publication.

I do want to add that given that I have a voice in the paper's editorial (opinion) positions and my personal opinion is on display periodicaly in staff columns, I strive mightily to check my opinion at the door when I gather and report news. You can search the archives and find an opinion column by me from before the primary expressing admiration for Obama's candidacy. Since then, I've covered both Obama and Sarah Palin. When I report on either presidential campaign, I fully expect readers to call bull if they detect my opinion driving or coloring the story. And they should.

As a reader, I want reporting and opinion to be clearly distinguished. And I think we do a pretty good job of that, even if it means we have to compartmentalize ourselves. The Hammers run their own show. Just because YES! Weekly also happens to be a tabloid-size publication that comes out once a week doesn't mean we have any obligation to operate under by their ground rules.

[Joe Wilson]

Jordan, I think more fact checking is in order as you check your opinion at the door and gather and report news.

I do not recall you identifying the subject of our meeting to be an endorsement interview. Was it a news interview or an opinion piece, if it was the former you omitted several facts.

Perhaps you should read the ad Charles Womack strongly and repeatedly urged me to run in your paper for examples of facts about me and my opponent.

I also allowed your post at my blog containing more fallacies about and threats to me. You said to me "you better have concrete evidence",or what Jordan you gonna lie about me?

I now ask you to provide concrete evidence of anything you have said about me. I also included something called factual research for you in my blog reply to your comment, look into it, journalists use it often.

At least you ratted out Clary since he wouldn't take credit for the smear job he did on me. Thank you for that.