I voted early so this won't help me, but it may interest you. Here the video debate between mayoral candidates Yvonne Johnson and Milton Kern. (Sorry, Billy.) Moderators are Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson and Government Editor Eddie Wooten.
Fair warning: It's 35 minutes long; they are politicians, after all.
Update: We've broken it down by question so it's more manageable.
Wondering who to vote for? Wondering what the candidates look and sound like? Want to hear them without the filter -- or questions -- of the news media? Here they are.
Well, not all of them. All candidates were invited; some didn't take us up on it. Curiously, many challengers didn't come in, but most of the incumbents did. In any case, they are about what you'd think they'd be.
Margaret Banks wrote today of newly elected city council members Mike Barber, Trudy Wade and Mary Rakestraw: The three leaders -- along with Councilwoman Sandra Anderson Groat, who was re-elected Tuesday -- ran on platforms of increasing transparency in city government. They argued City Hall should bring controversial issues into the open, even if it means not portraying a unified front for the TV cameras.
Regardless of what you think of Sandy Carmany's politics, she is an impressively transparent and accessible council member. She loses her council seat -- let's pray not her blogging voice -- next month.
So, now, with their vows of transparency, who among the new council will start blogging the talk?
Do you think that Sandy's blog is one reason she didn't win?
A reader asked me that, fearing that rather than helping her, the council member's openness and accessibility essentially painted a target on her back.
My answer: No.
Her blog demonstrated to that she is reasonable, kind and cares deeply about Greensboro. It says that she was trying to navigate her role as a politician responsible to the public and a city official bound by commitments to confidentiality on some matters.
You might read her opinions on public matters, decide you disagree and vote for her opponent, but that's the result of her opinions, not her blog. I believe that the blog helps people get a sense of who Sandy is and enable them to connect with her.
Her accessibility did open her to disparagement from some bloggers, who took shots at her far and away more often than the other council members. But I can't imagine it cost her many votes.
In any case, who knows how many people in her district routinely read her blog -- and the others -- and who voted? (Only slightly more than 3,500 people voted in the district.)
I think the biggest contributor to her defeat was that she didn't get the Simkins PAC endorsement.
Other thoughts: Sandy's, David Wharton's, Cara Michele's and Samuel Spagnola's.
Update: I've just read her 10 Plus interview for the Sunday paper. She addresses several of the points above and in the comments.
Americans believe that the news media does not provide enough coverage of the most important information about the (presidential) candidates and provides too much coverage of the least important information. In fact, the more important the American people believe an area of press coverage is, the less they say the press is providing coverage of it. In contrast, the less important they believe an area of coverage is, the more they believe they are seeing
too much of it.
That's from a new study by the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard.
You might be surprised to learn that I agree with many of the survey results. We do a pretty lousy job of helping you choose the best person to lead the country. (Of course, the survey also says that you don't trust the information we provide anyway so that probably doesn't matter.)
* Almost everyone polled say candidate policy plans are important to them, and almost two-thirds say we're not doing well providing it
* Same with candidates' personal values: They're important, and we're not providing coverage
* Coverage of negative campaign ads bore you, and we provide to much of it
* Gotcha moments for candidates aren't important, but we focus on them
Makes me proud.
In one sense, I have some distance from the indictments of the report. We don't cover the presidential campaign on our own; we use wire services. Additionally, "news media" is such a loaded, universal term these days that it's hard to feel connected to it. (Or maybe it's easy to justify the disconnect.) When you say news media, do you mean Fox News or CBS? Do you Inside Edition or Bill O'Reilly? Do you mean Oprah or Jon Stewart? Do you mean Daily Kos or Michelle Malkin? Do you mean the News & Record or The New York Times?
I watch the same television news programs you do. (Yes, I will watch me some Fox News as much as I watch CNN.) I may read a bit more because it's part of my job, but given that I don't disagree with the crux of the survey, the issue is moot.
Still, we select the wire stories we use. This information should inform our selection.
One issue we will have to get a handle on is frequency. We can drop most of the horse race stories without much trouble. We can drop most of the gotcha stories, too. (Has the debate coverage shed any light other than gotcha moments and horse race speculation?)
But if we do a page on the candidates' positions on immigration and you miss the paper that day, you and I disagree on how well we do it. So, presumably we need to print more in-depth pieces more often?
If you don't care about the news media, but do care about politics, the report also shows some interesting differences in the way Democrats and Republicans look at candidate attributes and qualifications.
Normally, we get complaints that we expend too much space on the presidential candidacy of John Edwards. Just to let you know that we hear all sides:
On Jan. 3, we published a package on the upcoming Iowa caucuses and used photos of Obama, Clinton, Romney and Huckabee on the front page to illustrate it. We got this e-mail:
Regardless of your political affiliation and regardless of your candidate preference in the Iowa presidential caucas, why would you publish on the front page photos of Democrats Obama and Clinton and not that of Edwards? Polls then showed Edwards even with the other two.
John Edwards is a respectable North Carolina citizen. N&R's omission raises questions as to its fairness. Democrats and Repubicans expect that in their local newspaper.
Think designing a newspaper is easy? Check out the typography critique of the candidates' (and now former candidates') logos.
These guys pick McCain and Obama based on typography, design and fairy dust.
Me, I'm just hoping for an NFC winner on Sunday.
(Thanks to Mel for the pointer.)
I vote.
I don't know why you'd care about that, but the issue of journalists voting is being kicked around.
Some journalists don't vote. I respect their thinking, but I don't agree.
I have thoughts and opinions about issues of the day. To say that I don't and therefore won't vote would be wrong. Most of the journalists I know have been trained to report dispassionately and can keep their opinions out of their stories.
I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet; it's early for me to decide. But come May, I'll be ready.
The N&O's public editor, Ted Vaden, discussed that paper's coverage of a visit by Barack Obama to Fayetteville last week. He mentions that the N&O solicited questions for Obama from readers, three of which were posed to the candidate by the N&O's longtime political reporter.
I have mixed feelings about that. It's great to give readers more ownership of the coverage, and their questions were good ones. But that also meant that Christensen had less time to ask his own questions.
I don't know about you, but in a fly-by interview with the possible next president of the United States I want the questions asked by a 30-year political reporter.
I know this is preaching to the choir, but I was thinking/hoping we were beyond deferring to the superior question-asking of the 30-year vet. (Hmmm...I'm a 30-year vet.) Fortunately, the news leadership at the N&O is. Senior Editor Linda Williams said:
Why should the professional journalists be the only people who get to decide what questions are important? I think we're beyond the point where just journalists get to decide what the important questions are and who gets to ask them.
With that sentiment in mind, Obama is coming here on Wednesday. I don't know that we will get an interview with him, but if we are, what questions should we ask?
And given that Clinton is coming somewhere in North Carolina on Thursday -- her camp is not saying where -- the same goes for her if she comes around here.
What does this say about our Web visitors?
According to Michael Grossman, our Web content guru, stories about Obama's visit here have been among the most read headlines every day. (It's No. 2 today.) The news yesterday that Clinton is coming to Winston barely cracked the Top 20. (It's 19.)
Of course, her visit is to Winston, not Greensboro, and the story was posted in the afternoon, so it didn't get a full day's traffic.
Does that mean that Obama has more support here? More support among our Web users? Readers automatically went to the Journal's site? Maybe supporters who know how to get a story about their candidate on the "most viewed" list?
It'll be interesting to see if Bill Clinton's visit Friday gets more traffic that Hillary's.
Of course, putting it into perspective, the story that is No. 1 to Obama's No.2? Gibsonville Police are looking for a woman who shot and wounded her live-in boyfriend after an argument Monday night.
Do you think we did enough with Barack Obama's visit?
Update: And video.
Best story?
With NCAA tournament time upon us, the big question for Sen. Barack Obama was about basketball. Who won the basketball game he played in February against North Carolina's former Sen. John Edwards?
Obama's answer: Edwards.
"(H)e's got an interesting game. He doesn't have much range, but from about 14 to 16 feet, he does not miss. So when I took it outside, beyond the 3-point line, he couldn't go out there. But he hit like eight in a row from 14 to 16 (feet), and that midrange jumper was tough."
On to Clinton! (But we probably won't have a piece about her basketball game.)
At what point does covering the presidential candidates' visits become repetitive? How many times does Hillary come into the region before her visit doesn't make big news? Or, better still, how many times do Bill or Chelsea campaign here before they assume the mantle of "routine?" (Both are coming to N.C. again this week.)
We did not write a news story about Hillary's second visit to Winston-Salem Friday, although we have video of her appearance. For the paper, we opted instead for Columnist Lorraine Ahearn's take on Sunday.
Of course, we covered both Clinton(s) and Obama when they came to the region the first time a few weeks ago. And it is a wonderful thing for civic engagement for presidential candidates to care so deeply about North Carolina (democratic) voters for the first time in many seasons.
But unless the candidates come into the counties where we sell papers we are probably going to let the AP send us reports. Yes, we miss the possibility of some gaff. Yes, we miss something amiss occurring. Yes, we miss the possibility, however slim, slight and non-existent, that the candidate may make news.
But we can use our reporters for other stories, and the AP does send reports of the candidates' visits.
Is it wrong? Should we sent a reporter and photographer if Obama or Clinton skip Greensboro but return to Winston or, say, Durham?
So last week we asked our Reader Panel this question: Do you think the News & Record covers politics in a fair manner?
You'll enjoy the results: Of the 128 people who responded, 82 answered yes, 28 said no and 18 qualified their answers in a variety of ways.
Now, if that doesn't make you want to join the Reader Panel, I don't know what will. Sign up and have your say about our news coverage. It will help us improve.
Those results are true, by the way. But as I said before, the sample is too small to draw many conclusions from. Still.
Some of the comments, presented in a fair and balanced way:
I think the paper tries to be objective and doesn't have a pronounced bias either liberal or conservative. I only wish the letter writers could be as calm and intelligent. The paper does a very good job, good paper for this size market.
..........
Tends to empahsize stories with a liberal agenda without examining both sides of an issue. Not quite as bad as the NY Times, but far from "balanced reporting."
..........
No! I have never thought the paper was objective. The editorials are fairly balanced between left and right but the local opinions are not. I must admit that most newspapers have a left lean which is sad and not objective reporting. Sorry!
..........
I do. All of us have inherent biases that are difficult to overcome. But on balance, the N&R seeks to be fair.
..........
Absolutely not. The bias toward the Democrat Party (it is Democrat not Democratic as the article states) is blatantly obvious. Get a few conservatives to write for your paper and maybe more people will read it with more interest.
..........
Yes -- the GOP can't help that they are stupid people.
My newspaper column
"Who are you going to vote for?" is almost as common a question in my household as "What's for dinner?"
With the May 6 primary looming, it is a darned good question. Not only are dozens of presidential, state and local candidates vying for your attention, but Guilford County voters must decide whether to approve a total of $671.6 million in bonds.
It can be a daunting, frustrating time for even the most engaged citizen.
Yet more evidence that putting much stock in political polls is wasted effort. I don't have a clue why any media organization would publish the results prominently, much less pay to conduct them.
While it has been exciting to live through the past two weeks as the two Democratic presidential candidates have discovered that there are voters in North Carolina, I must admit that a small but rapidly growing part of me is so done with the candidates and their families visiting the state.
A day hasn't gone by in the past two weeks in which an Obama or a Clinton haven't been in the state. (With the Clintons triple-teaming us, I can well imagine how Tyler Hansbrough feels in the paint.) We have Bill in Reidsville last night and Hill in High Point today. We even have John McCain in Winston on Election Day, for goodness sakes. (I'm sure he's getting good advice about where to campaign, but I hope he isn't expecting his visit to get much play in the Wednesday papers.)
I know from the crowds they draw that people love the face time with the candidate. It is an exciting time to be a voter whose vote in the presidential primary matters....at least if you are a Democrat. But for a newspaper, how many times can we write a story about Bill visiting Greensboro or Elon or Kernersville or Reidsville? (He says he has the rural tour.) Chelsea is good for one story, but she doesn't say much that's newsworthy. She scarcely spoke to the media during her visit to the Children's Museum. Even though Hillary was at Guilford College Friday afternoon, we put most of our efforts into her appearance in Raleigh later that night. We wrote: Earlier Friday, Clinton gave a speech at Guilford College in Greensboro. Her talk touched on many of her regular themes, including making college affordable, improving health care and pulling soldiers from Iraq.
Given that their stump speeches are much the same, what do we have to report? And the coverage gets the candidates' faithful all riled up. (Actually, that happens regardless of where the candidates are.) We didn't cover the former president in our area last night, but we will be the candidate today. And we don't know yet whether either will be in the state to celebrate a victory tomorrow night.
Personally, I'm trying to keep my eye on the prize -- the potential for more people than ever participating in the democratic process by voting.
Lenslinger has more. What all this simulated momentum has to do with governing our great land I ain't so sure, but if I wanted to manufacturethis kind of clamor I'd go back to pimpin' American Idol. They got w-a-y cuter interns.
Joe Killian posts a couple photos on Decision 2008 of the extent to which some Hillary fans will go. (And Joe has a nice little riff about the music played for the candidates.)
Traditionally, newspapers shy away from giving last-minute controversial political statements high visibility on Election Day. Certainly not on the front page; probably tucked inside the paper, if we publish at all. We're old fashioned that way. Several reasons:
* The statements often cannot be vetted in time
* Publishing on the day people vote risks giving the statement more influence that it deserves
* The "other side" doesn't have much time to respond to the "hot" story
If I could do it over again, this story would have been inside the paper today. (It was on the Local front.) A week ago, an article about two school board members urging voters to vote down school bonds would have been worth notice. Today, it violates at least two of the reasons above. Unfortunately, they successfully played us. It's not a mortal sin; more of a low-grade venial one. Still.
Allen has more. Right now this feels wrong, like a political sucker punch..
Want to hear the straight talk on McCain's Straight Talk Express? Mark Binker taped it in all its 25-minute glory today.
Be prepared to listen to sausage being made.
A caller wanted to know why we didn't identify the race of the voters we quoted in our presidential primary stories.
Specifically, he wanted to know whether all of the people we quoted supporting Obama were African Americans. (I'm being kind: He said that he knew they were because they "sounded" like it.)
Racial profiling?
By including that piece of information, it would suggest that the individual's race is specifically relevant to how they voted. It may be. It may be because an African American wants a black man to win in the same way that a woman votes for Hillary because of her gender. It may also mean that the voter agrees with Obama's policies because they have seen the world through similar eyes.
I think the discussion overly simplifies a complex decision, and, in some case, tries to affirm our own beliefs about people. Many emotional, intellectual and political factors enter into picking a candidate.
Singling race out seems unfair, unless the voter specifically said he voted for Obama because of his race. An African American may vote for Obama because they support his policies. Put another way, imagine this sentence: "John Doe, who is white, said he voted for Obama because he agreed with him on the gas tax moratorium." What does race have to do with his vote? Nothing.
Granted, we want it both ways. We look at the demographics of voter registration and exit polling. Our first paragraph on the Obama victory story today certainly examined the results through a racial lens: Sen. Barack Obama's sweeping victory over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the North Carolina primary reaffirmed his strength among the affluent and African American voters and set up the final rounds in the bruising contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.
That tells me more about who voted for Obama and how he won, but not why.
I have been critical in the past of celebrity news coverage in the paper, explaining that we didn't spend any time and little space on the antics of Britney and Brangelina. Leave that to the Peoples and the Us magazines of the world.
Oh, how wrong I was. Little did I know that we have had nothing but celebrity-dominated front pages for much of the past month
From The New York Times:
Some of the most celebrity-centric, entertainment-obsessed news media outlets have added a heavy dose of political news to their lineups, taking space normally devoted to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and handing it to articles on people known more for wonkiness than sexiness....
Driving all of it, editors and campaign aides say, is the appetite for news on presidential candidates and their families -- people who have transcended politics to become bona fide celebrities. As the campaign stretches into its second year, in some corners it is simply seen as entertainment.
Entertaining, it is.