Politics without parachutes

Posted

Here’s the situation: Your mother, wife and Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott are with you on a plane that has lost power at 15,000 feet. You suddenly realize you have only two parachutes. Dak is probably going to have a good year…

Some scenarios don’t include a good choice.

The past couple of weeks, we made three decisions regarding our coverage during the run-up to last Saturday’s local election that make the plane scenario seem a bit easier. In each instance, we were supplied or told information regarding local candidates.

The first was the easiest but arguably the closest of the three to news. A sign had been moved. We were provided a lot of detail from everyone involved. There was plenty of information and no disputing what happened. In our view, though, it was a story without a narrative. A bunch of words that, on their own, looked like news but never fit together. We have a writer who could make it work but writers realize quickly that when you must work especially hard to make words read sensibly, there is no there, there.

Two other issues were a little thornier and I refuse to address them specifically because it still doesn’t benefit anyone to know particulars pertaining to either story. What I will do, though, is explain why they aren’t stories. Elections at any level from school board to president are difficult to cover without bias. It’s easy for our reporters to be fair and impartial. The bias creeps in by way of salacious news tips or even a well-intentioned mention of something true a person wants publicly exposed. When that happens, we look at it, discuss it and look at the pros and cons of developing a news story. A lot of consideration is given to whom the story will affect most. We even measure the effect of not writing the story. There’s potential impact by way of omission, too.

Let me be clear, these weren’t easy decisions. Each story came within minutes of being assigned to our writers. Each had merit. What they lacked though was pertinence. Would anything positive come from the extra sunlight printing would provide? Most everyone we speak to regularly already possessed the information. Would the candidates’ opponents benefit? Definitely. Is the information pertinent to the office the people sought? That was the tough one. We decided neither had any direct impact on holding local office. I’m still comfortable – heck, I’m still proud of our decision. We gave up a lot of single copy sales when we decided against running with it despite the fact we are specifically paid to sell newspapers.

When it came time to make the call, we figured the only benefit went to opponents. The story subjects would have their reputations impugned, if not seriously injured for issues that had nothing to do with the election. In fact, had it not been because of the election, these issues wouldn’t have come up at all. Unless you strain and tilt your head just so, these were not news stories. If anyone disagrees, I’d remind everyone how much I love to sell papers. We see everything as news before we don’t.

It's important to note, we appreciated receiving this information. By an easy margin, most people had the city’s interest at heart. It was a judgement call. It will be next time as well. Bring the information, though. We don’t throw sources under the bus nor do we pre-judge its value. Sometimes we simply disagree. We should always, however, agree to communicate openly, with morals, values and intent in full view. It’s easier. And it’s a better way to write a news story.

As to the dilemma regarding Dak Prescott’s parachute, my suggestion would be take the train.

Comments