Elections...

[Jim O'Bryan]

While The Lake wood Observer is preparing to ramp up our coverage of the fall election some interesting questions have come up.

Should the Observer change our stance on how we cover elections?

In the past it was the thought of this civic source project to present information on levies and candidates positions with help from the Lakewood League of Women Voters, and let people decide.

or

Do we form a group that weighs through the information and decided to back one candidate over another. Takes a stance on levies?

It had always been our belief that we do a far greater service to the community by not backing and allowing every individual to see the information so that they could apply it to their life and situation.

Recently, some of our political writers, and others have thought this project has grown enough in stature and backing from the business community that we should take a stand.

As this is a true civic source project, I open it for discussion?


.

[Gary Rice]

Good Morning Jim,

The question that you raise easily becomes a classic conundrum.

Ordinarily, a paper has an editorial page, where there is a clear distinction between news and polemical prose. Of course, these days, many news sources appear to slant their entire coverage to favor one point of view, as you well know

Our paper, however, is unique.

As a citizen effort, we might see an issue overloaded with political stuff one week, and having very little in the following week.

One of our Republican Observers might decide to submit a one page op-ed piece one week, and a Democrat, the next. We would freely publish both. To do less would turn our paper into a propaganda rag, like so many other papers have done.

If we were to have an "official" stance on a candidate, it could marginalize our credibility as to whether we were truly a community effort, or not.

There's another unconventional paper in the Greater Cleveland area that seems to delight in attacking establishments and figureheads, virtually all the time, at least in my opinion.

Anyone can destroy quickly, but who can build slowly?

I would suggest that if you, I, Gordon, or whomever want to endorse under the individual byline, go for it!

But as a paper, no.

A bigger problem might be this: We are, as a paper, unabashedly pro-regarding building Lakewood's brand. What do we do, when there's a genuine negative problem to be dealt with?

(Like the famous running urinal at the Women's Pavilion? Discussed in these threads, but unmentioned in the paper)

Accentuating the positive is good, but do we do so at the expense of hard, but sometimes necessary journalism?

Omnis civitas corpus est.
Every city is a living body.

St. Augustine (354-430)

[Bryan Schwegler]

I agree with Gary, I don't think the observer should officially endorse candidates. As a community project, that would automatically alienate part of the community you're trying to bring together.

When out reading "the other boards" it's already well thought that the Observer is just a shill for the current administration (a view I don't share) and I would hate to have the wonderful civic experiment do anything to encourage that line of thought.

Issues however may lend some more flexibility in possible observer endorsements. Issues tend to be less divisive and often much more complicated in people's minds. Perhaps they would appreciate help deciding.

To Gary's other point, which I also agree with, I think allowing individual op-ed pieces would be a good compromise over the Observer itself endorsing candidates.

[Mike Deneen]

I agree with Gary.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I agree with Gary.

Mike

As you have been in these discussions last year, you know where stand.

I cannot believe how arrogant, throwing the muscle of a community website or paper behind one candidate is.

Each one of us have different needs, thoughts and affiliations.

I prefer to keep the Observer where it is.

But the question came up, so I asked.

.

[Danielle Masters]

I agree I don't want the paper to back any one candidate. Op-eds are fine with me then everyone will get fair coverage.

[Mark Crnolatas]

If the LO is going to be dominated by political articles soon, one suggestion might be, to clearly state in an upcoming issue, that the LO will not support any particular candidate, or political issue, but would be willing to present as many sides to the political candidates and political issues as possible, written by people expressing their own opinions. This would assist the readers in making their own decisions and prevent the LO from appearing as a pure political arm of any particular interest group of any sort.

I believe the LO has evolved above that level.


Mark C.

[Lynn Farris]

I have no problem if the Observer takes the stand, like the League of Woman Voters do, of endorsing issues as long as they explain both sides. I do have a problem with them endorsing candidates.

I do like the idea presenting all the candidates fairly - again I think the League of Woman Voters is a great model. They ask all the candidates the same questions and give them a word allotment which means we get to see the 100 words or so that they feel is most important in describing their achievements, goals what have you. I was quite offended when I moved to Northern Ohio that the PD did not give equal time and a ballot for each candidate so I could do a good job of preparing to vote.

However, I see nothing wrong with the paper doing similar announcements of candidates who decide to run. And even allowing candidates to each write an article prior to the election. As long as each are given approximately the same amount of space.

I think it would be nice for the Observer to host a candidates night as well where people could meet the candidates and get to ask questions in a controlled fashion.

[Mark Crnolatas]

Lynn, here is where it might get sticky. Let's use a hypothetical example.
Let's say a group wants the LO to endorse Partial Birth Abortions, which many people believe is legal murder : http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml

Do we really want to "brand" the LO with endorsing such controversy, which in the end might divide the people of the Wood, and threaten projects born from such a marvelous project itself, as the L.O.?

By the way, that website URL is one that was sent to me in an email from a former Woody (Lakewoodite), who believes those abortions are simply murder. 1st degree.
I look at my youngest daughter, then that website, and look at the photos of our little girl in the womb at 5 months pregnancy, who responded to different music in different ways, as well as other things, and and you can pretty well imagine my own stand on such a "thing".

Mark (Allan) Crnolatas.
Musician

[Bryan Schwegler]

I think that's a pretty extreme example.

I would imagine the LO would only take a position on a local issue, say a school bond levy or an income tax increase. Providing the facts on both sides and giving insight.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I think that's a pretty extreme example.

I would imagine the LO would only take a position on a local issue, say a school bond levy or an income tax increase. Providing the facts on both sides and giving insight.

All


Can I play this game?

Is there a difference between an Observer and the paper and project?

Can I take a stand and not have it perceived as the paper's stand?

The Lakewood Observer Project is dedicated to helping Lakewoodites understand the issues and the city. I try to do it without any prejudice, some say to a fault. Example: I do not even advertise my business in the paper, as I think it would be perceived as unfair. But on the Deck I do mention my business occasionally.

What is right, what do we as the board or a Observers do?

Today I was speaking with Kevin Butler, the Election came up. He thought editorials from Lakewoodites would be fair in the paper. To be honest I was not so sure. What if we get slammed by a bunch of people blindly supporting one candidate or another, and it does not let the true positions come out?

Another problem, last count we have board members that are working on almost every election in the city. How do we weigh that out? In the end the paper has to be one hundred percent fair. The Deck I see that based on taking part. I have been known to write check for candidates, so has DL, Ken, Steve Davis and others.

You have no idea how many times we go over this conversation.


.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

I liked the issue two elections ago where the back of the paper was strictly for explaining each and every issue on the voting ballot. It had me, the teen, reading about the issues and trying to understand what the impact of all of them would be.

It explained both sides, and gave a brief description. good stuff.

[Jeff Endress]

I have been known to write check for candidates, so has DL, Ken, Steve Davis and others.

Steve? Really?

[stephen davis]

Jeff,

Don't believe everything you read.

Steve

[Lynn Farris]

Ivor,

I think that was the League of Women Voter's analysis - it is really excellent - they do a great job.