On editorial endorsements and mammon

In ancient times I was an editorial writer and columnist for the Detroit News, one of the most conservative metropolitan newspapers in America. It always struck me as strange for a newspaper to go against the grain of Detroit, a lunch bucket town, a black town, a progressive town.
I was the house liberal, outvoted at editorial conferences something like 7-1. I wrote mostly on city-state matters because I could do the least harm to the newspaper’s editorial policies. But sometimes my editorial words were changed or my columns killed.
One day I wrote an editorial about the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. My words, police riot, were changed to disturbance. A column lauding a socialist candidate for governor of Michigan was spiked. (I naively believed that a personal column did not carry the lofty cachet of the Detroit News.)
My 15-year career in newspapering was totally undistinguished: no scoops, no brilliant stories and no Pulitzer Prizes. But I did have one triumph.
I interviewed candidates for city and state office and then presented my endorsement slate to the board. Once I induced the paper to endorse two Marxists, not out of any ideological fervor, but because they were the best candidates.
I did not tell the board that they were leftists. That would have nixed the endorsements. Reporters for the rival Detroit Free Press, a liberal paper, told me that the News’ endorsements were better than those at their paper.
Anyway, I liked polemical journalism. It’s one of the best jobs in newspapers if—if you have absolute freedom. I doubt if there is a newspaper in America, other than the Sparks Tribune, where writers have that precious commodity. Not more pay, not more weeks of vacation, but freedom.
Lack of freedom is why most editorial pages are so dull. They are a product of consensus thinking. But nothing done by committee has that wonderful spark of individuality.
All of which leads to the Reno Gazette-Journal opinion pages. They are weak and wishy-washy, done with a focus group mentality.
Incredibly, it opposed an election ballot issue that would have raised the pitiful minimum wage. It opposed a sensible proposal to legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
It cynically endorsed state Republican Sen. Maurice Washington of Sparks even though he is one of the worst lawmakers in Nevada.
The politics of Washington are backward and his ethics profoundly disturbing. But his re-election would give two votes to Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio to protect the perceived interests of northern Nevada before the surging political power of southern Nevada.
The paper did endorse Democrats Dina Titus for governor and Jill Derby for Congress but tepidly. It backed Republican U.S. Sen. John Ensign, a reactionary Bushite.
Which leads to another serious problem for northern Nevadans. The RGJ is a mediocre newspaper. You cannot have a good newspaper by worshipping mammon, which the Gazette-Journal does for its Gannett chain.
The RGJ is woefully understaffed, leaving reporters no time for analytical stories and interpretive journalism. It has no Las Vegas bureau, no Sparks bureau--and, most damning, no Reno bureau. It does not have a regular Reno City Hall beat reporter. It offers no “think pieces,” those important behind-the-scenes reports of politics and public affairs.
Its reporters are forbidden to use anonymous sources. Yes, blind sources are tricky. The entire story should not be based on them. Readers can judge the credibility only if sources are named.
But sometimes anonymous sources are essential. They protect sources from retaliation while giving readers important insights. Why was that athlete kicked off the football team? The RGJ sports writer knows. But he can’t inform readers because anonymous sources are prohibited. (The New York Times uses them constantly, contributing to reader understanding.)
Sadly, the RGJ is run by accountants, advertisers, lawyers and third-rate editors--in that order. Even Gannett’s new information center with multi-media coverage 24/7 will not lift the paper above mediocrity. Oh, yes, the center means more work, no more pay and an expectation that reporters should carve out the extra hours on their time.
As for editorial endorsements, they are of scant worth. Readers do not need to be told who to vote for in high visibility races: president, governor, Congress. Endorsements might be of some use in low-visibilty races. But as President Franklin Roosevelt used to say: give him the front page and you can have the editorial page (which has half the readership of page one).