News-Record.com

We wrote about the challenges facing lesser known City Council candidates this morning.

From the story:

Candidates also express some frustration with media coverage they say sometimes is tilted toward incumbents and those who accumulate a large campaign fund. That kind of attention "becomes like a de facto endorsement," at-large candidate Joel Landau said.

He and others singled out coverage of fundraising as a particularly aggravating trend. That tends to benefit candidates who already have an advantage by being tied to contributors with money to burn, they say. ...

Gray created a blog for his campaign, and though he enjoys it, it's not a solution by itself. "I've got to rely on the established media to be fair," he said.

The rub is that fair coverage does not necessarily mean equal coverage. We do our best to provide equal coverage when it comes to the basics: candidate profiles, questionnaires, and, even, to some extent, the forums. We give candidates every chance to have their say. But stories about fund-raising, about endorsements and about campaigns aren't intended to be created equal. That's where news judgment enters in, and equal exposure for 32 candidates is only one factor to be considered, and it isn't the most important one. We make judgments based on news value to readers and to citizens.

Other factors we consider include: Is the candidate saying something of note? Does the candidate have a history of service that suggests he or she has a strong foundation of voter support? Is the candidate attracting donations and who is doing the donating? Has the candidate run for elective office before? How close did he or she come to being elected? Is the candidate doing something particularly interesting or unique in his or her campaign?

No question it's an art, not a science. Is it unfair to the candidates? In a way, yes. It is, though, the way the mainstream press covers elections, thanks to resources, newshole and, most important, readership interest. Note the number of stories about, say, Hillary Clinton vs. Bill Richardson.

Locally, newcomers do get elected, in both open seats and defeating incumbents. Victory is based on a combination of discontent with the incumbent and past service -- which translates into name-recognition -- by the newcomer. While I would love to take credit for the election and defeat of municipal candidates, I'm afraid that would call for more self-importance than even I can muster. Good people get defeated, and lesser candidates presumably get elected.

Personally, I trust voters to make good decisions. Sometimes I'm proven wrong -- usually when I disagree with the electorate's choice -- but most of the time, I believe that voters know what they're doing. I would hope the candidates do, too.

I'm only being half flip when I quote the Fabulous Sports Babe: "If you don't like the officiating, score more points."