Has anyone else noticed how lax and undisciplined the StarTribune
endorsement procedures seem to be? They seem to be able to get away with
practices that would be strongly condemned if any other interest group
operated using these practices.
I'm talking mainly about their screenings for the various board races in
the city. Here is what I understand went on for those: a group of
candidates for a board (up to 6 at once) were interviewed by 3 StarTribune
people. Questions were thrown out to the group of candidates, and they
spoke out in response to these questions (rather like a group
discussion). Candidates were not asked to answer questions in turn, nor
was each candidate given an opportunity to answer every
question. Meanwhile, another group of candidates for that same board were
doing the same thing in front of 3 other StarTribune people. Then
afterwards, the StarTribune people got together and made their endorsements.
I'm comparing these procedures to the Stonewall DFL screenings, which I
attended; but I think the usual procedures at most screenings are similar.
- usually, candidates are screened individually. Other candidates for the
office (even if Stonewall members) are not allowed to be present for anyone
else's screening. The StarTribune screened multiple candidates together,
more like a debate than a screening. (But even in a debate, a moderator is
there to make sure that each person gets a chance to answer the questions.)
- usually, each candidate is asked to answer the same set of questions,
and gets the same amount of time to do so. (The Stonewall questions are
posted on the e-democracy site, and some candidates have even chosen to
also post their responses on that site.) The StarTribune just threw out
the questions, and let whoever talked loudest & longest answer them. They
did not give each person a chance to speak to each question.
- usually, only people who have been present to hear all the candidates
are allowed to vote on the endorsement. The StarTribune had different
groups of people screening candidates, so they were deciding on
endorsements for candidates they had not even heard.
- usually, candidates are given the courtesy of a personal message to
inform them of the results of their screening within a couple of days,
before it is publicly announced. The StarTribune does not bother to do this.
- usually, candidates who receive endorsement are given access to the
group members (mailing labels or email lists) for free, as a benefit of the
endorsement. The StarTribune publishes their endorsements on the editorial
page, and then offers to sell copies to the candidate.
Several of these procedures seem to me to be rather unfair to the
candidates. And some of them (like not talking to each candidate
individually) don't seem likely to result in endorsing the best candidates
-- just the loudest, most aggressive ones.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
