Who’s ignored the most?
The daily newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia, announced on Oct. 23, in an anonymous editorial, that its anonymous editorial section will no longer endorse candidates for the U.S. presidency. "Presidential elections are not our beat," The Virginian-Pilot editorial said. "Our time is best spent on local and state problems, or those national ones that bear directly on us." Not like the U.S. presidency, even if it does have something or other to do with all those aircraft carriers and assorted shippy things at the U.S. Navy base in Norfolk. This is one newspaper that is taking a dramatic stand for the new new in newspapers, the call of the hyper-uber-maximus local local everything. The response to the new "no comment" stand on future presidents either validates the change, or should inspire the unnamed editorialists to find new work, fast. The newspaper’s public editor, Marvin Lake, wrote a few days after the announcement:
"I envisioned a spirited discussion, with readers reacting strongly, pro and con, one side accusing the paper of abdicating its "responsibility"; the other, declaring "It’s about time!" Guess what? It didn’t happen. I didn’t get a single phone call about the announcement. Nary an e-mail.
Ouch.
In fairness, the public editor, who does attach his name to his words, was a tad tough on the public. There were 31 comments on the original editorial. Which leads to yet another icky question: could it be that the public editor is even more ignored than the editorialists? Double ouch.
