Portland Oregonian didn’t endorse Saxton--one guy did

The more I learn about the Oregonian’s endorsement of Ron Saxton for governor, the screwier it looks.

Sunday the Editorial Page Editor, Bob Caldwell, revealed that he alone made the call on the Saxton endorsement, even though a majority (six) of the ten-member board leaned toward Kulongoski.

So this is Screwy Factoid #1. The gubernatorial endorsement of the state’s largest newspaper should have said, “Bob Caldwell favors Ron Saxton for governor.” One guy, one personal opinion.

Instead, the editorial ended with:

It is a leap of faith to endorse a former school board chairman over a sitting governor. If all was well, we would recommend that voters re-elect Kulongoski. But the times demand a fresh look at Oregon's problems and Saxton brings an open, independent mind to the task. We recommend that voters select him as their next governor.

We? There’s no “We”! There’s “Me,” Bob Caldwell. If a vote had been taken of the editorial board members, it would have been 6-4 in favor of Kulonogoski. Or, since one of the six was a wishy-washy supporter of the incumbent, 5-4 with an abstention.

Kings and queens get to refer to themselves as the royal “We.” And editorial writers can, too, as Wikipedia points out, when he or she is a spokesman for the publication. But in this case Caldwell was speaking for a minority of the editorial board.

This should have been revealed in the endorsement, not after the fact. In today’s Oregonian, letter writer Helena Wolfe tells it like it should have been:

It was shocking to learn that the endorsement of Ron Saxton by The Oregonian editorial board came down to the personal preferences of Editorial Page Editor Bob Caldwell, even though the board narrowly favored Ted Kulongoski ("So, who made the Saxton decision -- and who did not," Oct. 22).

Given the close split among board members, abstaining from endorsing either candidate would have been the more responsible action for the newspaper to take.

As things stand, Saxton now has a soundbite to use in his advertising, and Kulongoski's stance has been irreparably damaged. The Oregonian should have just presented the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and honestly told the public that the board was too divided to make an endorsement.

My Screwy Factoid #2 cost me $2.95 to discover. This is how much my VISA card got charged to obtain an archived file of an October 10, 2004 Oregonian piece by the public editor, “How the choice was made to endorse Kerry.”

But it was worth three bucks to read about how the editorial board’s presidential endorsement process worked two years ago. Some excerpts:

No vote is taken on endorsements; instead, Caldwell looks for a consensus to emerge and makes the call. In 2000, five members had pushed for Bush. But three of those five, including Caldwell and Rowe, were supporting or leaning toward the Democrat this time. Only Stickel and columnist David Reinhard ended up arguing that the newspaper should endorse Bush.

…Stickel [the publisher] was disappointed by the decision but says he respects it. Although he could have overridden the choice, he considers that foolish. “Why would you have an editor of the editorial board, why would you have six associate editors, if you’re going to sit there and tell them what to do?” he says.

Good question.

I wish Bob Caldwell would have asked it of himself before he overrode the gubernatorial preference of a majority of the editorial board. What’s foolish for one overrider is foolish for another. Stickel was smart enough to recognize that an endorsement based on one person’s personal opinion is meaningless.

Which, we now know, the Saxton endorsement is.

[I’ll include the full 2004 article below, thereby getting more of my $2.95 money’s worth.]

Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)
October 10, 2004

THE PUBLIC EDITOR: HOW THE CHOICE WAS MADE TO ENDORSE KERRY

Author: MICHAEL ARRIETTA-WALDEN - of The Oregonian staff

Publisher Fred Stickel argued strongly in an editorial board meeting that The Oregonian should endorse George W. Bush.

On today's editorial page, the newspaper backs John Kerry.

The decision reveals starkly how the newspaper makes political endorsements, from the range of opinions behind the scenes to the extraordinary independence that a publisher grants his editors. I wrote about the endorsement process last month and decided to revisit it to detail how this year's decision evolved because I anticipate many readers will have questions about it.

The decision is the responsibility of Bob Caldwell, the newspaper's editorial page editor. But he relies heavily on the other members of the newspaper's editorial board. The board is made up of Caldwell, the newspaper's six editorial writers, and also Stickel and Editor Sandy Rowe.

To prepare for a discussion about the decision, members are expected to conduct research on the candidates. The board also seeks interviews with the candidates.

This year, the board met with Kerry briefly during a campaign stop, but never conducted a full interview before the endorsement. Unlike in 2000, the board didn't meet with President Bush. But Caldwell says that it met with many of his representatives, from Karl Rove to Condoleezza Rice.

For weeks, Caldwell has been discussing the candidates with board members. In 2000, the newspaper endorsed Bush. But Caldwell wasn't so certain this time, particularly because of how the war in Iraq has been conducted and because he views many of Bush's domestic policies as extreme. Yet he also has many doubts about Kerry.

The first presidential debate helped nudge him toward Kerry. Last Monday, when Caldwell walked into the meeting with the eight other board members, he was leaning toward Kerry.

Each board member presented his or her views on the candidates, although the focus was on the president's performance. Several members applauded Bush's leadership after Sept. 11 and his No Child Left Behind Act, but his conduct of the war and his resistance to other points of view in his governing dominated the conversation.

No vote is taken on endorsements; instead, Caldwell looks for a consensus to emerge and makes the call. In 2000, five members had pushed for Bush. But three of those five, including Caldwell and Rowe, were supporting or leaning toward the Democrat this time. Only Stickel and columnist David Reinhard ended up arguing that the newspaper should endorse Bush.

Reinhard says he was bothered by what he saw as the board's strong opposition to Bush. In a swing state, he says, the newspaper's editorial writers should be more reflective of the divided community. "What happens in that meeting is symptomatic of the problem in the newspaper industry, because we're out of touch," he says.

Stickel was disappointed by the decision but says he respects it. Although he could have overridden the choice, he considers that foolish. "Why would you have an editor of the editorial board, why would you have six associate editors, if you're going to sit there and tell them what to do?" he says.

Caldwell says the decision was difficult for him, especially because the board so respects Stickel's opinion. But Caldwell ultimately agreed with most other board members to endorse Kerry, the only other Democrat besides Bill Clinton to win the newspaper's backing. He relied primarily on three factors: Bush's conduct of the war and its aftermath; what Caldwell sees as the extreme positions of the Bush administration on domestic issues, especially given the closeness of the last election; and the inability of the administration to work with other nations in the arena of international affairs.

"I don't think you can call me a strong Kerry supporter," Caldwell says. "I have my doubts that he will make a good president."

As with any editorial opinion, Rowe says, the decision will have no effect on coverage in the news pages.

But it will affect letters to the editors and guest opinions chosen for publication. Letters supporting Kerry have been outnumbering those backing Bush by a ratio of more than 5-to-1. But Caldwell says the newspaper will give more weight to publishing opinions in favor of Bush, to counter the editorial endorsement.

I know the newspaper likely disappointed as many as half of its readers. But those readers should find solace in the views and encouragement of Joanne Byrd, the former ombudsman for The Washington Post and editorial page editor of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Byrd considers the independence of The Oregonian's endorsement process to be rare. "I've always presumed that the publisher really had all the votes he needed to get his way, especially on the presidential endorsement, what we think is the most important decision the editorial board will make," she says. "It's such a critical statement of what the newspaper thinks."

She encourages readers to use the endorsement to challenge their thinking, not dictate their votes. She admired the reader who called up to ask when her newspaper was publishing its entire list of endorsements because it always helped her decide how to vote.

"She knew if we liked them, she didn't," Byrd says with a laugh. "We help people make up their minds, but there are lots of ways to influence."

Michael Arrieta-Walden: 503-221-8221 or toll free from outside the 503 area at 877-238-8221; [email protected]; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland OR 97201. Web log: www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/publiceditor.

Comments

[Rain]

That's amazing and informative and a total example of how spin works over and over again and how the media is no help in sorting out anything. grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[lw]

I keep reading Sundays Oregonian explaination on the editorial boards decision process. I cannot find that the vote was 6-4. I read it as saying it was 5-5 with one person "leaning" towards Ted. That is not a 6-4 vote on boards I serve on. Was there a final vote where the one person "leaning" was asked to give their final, absolute vote?

[Varner]

You are so right on with this. I absolutely agree with your critique and I was disapointed when I read the defense of the Saxton decision. The real problem I have with it is that the cover story is so very paper thin, the logic so tortured. And really, I want better thought process in an editorial page.

[Sid Leader]

Hey Bobby!

I'm a math teacher.

Give me a call.

Because four is less than six, unless you're a big fat bully.

[spicey]

much appreciated. would be good to spread this wide and far. the O needs to get its act together. no excuse for this. and, how about a better website? $2.95 for an archived article, shameless.

[Brian]

lw, Caldwell said that five members of the board favored Kulongoski strongly, and one favored him slightly. That's why I said a majority (six) of the board leaned toward Kulongoski.

I don't see how you arrive at 5-5. It could be 5-4 with one other member leaning toward Kulonogski, but not 5-5 (because Saxton didn't have five clear supporters).

[proud lefty]

Great work, I have been pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of any logic of the O's decision (and I use that word lightly) to all who will listen and your post helps that cause.

[lw]

Spicey, you help make my point. As Caldwell said, there are 10 board members, 5 favor Ted, one leaning toward Ted. He said the board was split, meaning 5 to 5. As I said before, many times at board/committee meetings the "vote is not in until the voting is done"-meaning there is discussion, give and take on ideas, positions, then maybe a final vote. Sometimes when an issue seems to be right down the middle or close, a vote is not taken at that time to "save face", let "further discussion" occur, or it is tabled to see if a stronger position forms. That is maybe what occured at the O. But, from my understanding from O insiders, the editorial bd. doesn't have to come to an absolute decision on a position, big dog can prevail.

[Brian]

lw, I believe you mean "Brian" when you said "Spicey" above. Regardless, I still am unable to grasp how five in favor of Kulongoski and one leaning toward Kulongoski, with four in favor of Saxton, is a "split" decision.

60-40 is close, but not split...down the middle. If the board had voted, Kulongoski almost certainly would have won the endorsement.

Which, thankfully, he almost certainly will on Nov. 7, given his strong recent poll numbers.

[Kija]

Here's the exact language describing the opinions of the board: The board was split. Five favored Gov. Ted Kulongoski strongly. One favored him slightly, but also thought Saxton would be a plausible choice. Four favored Saxton.

There's no way that makes 5 to 5.

[Larry Mc]

Helena Wolfe couldn't have been more right.

After working in newspapers for almost 20 years, I was taken aback when the editor of the New Republic admitted that he had overruled a majority of his board to endorse Senator Lieberman for the Dem's 2004 Presidential nomination. I was taken aback but knew it didn't matter because Holy Joe didn't have a hope in hell of getting the nomination.

Now the Oregonian pulls the same stunt in a situation where it could make a major difference. I have to hope that most voters (not necessarily readers) find the O as irrelevant as I do. Regardless of the impact, the absence of journalistic ethics leaves me not taken aback but aghast.