Candidates Bristle at Enquirer Rule

Some political candidates are calling it the Internet equivalent of protection money, while others are calling it "pay to play."

The Porkopolis column in this week's CityBeat details how The Cincinnati Enquirer is using its editorial board blog, “Today at the Forum,” to allow commenting on issues by the 26 candidates for Cincinnati City Council. The blog includes questions submitted by The Enquirer’s readers and editors.

Candidates were told about the blog experiment when they attended endorsement interviews recently with The Enquirer’s editorial board. Some of the candidates are upset the editorial board stated one factor that will help them decide on endorsements is whether the person has participated in the newspaper’s online Q&A forum. Most of the information already is available on their campaign Web sites, they added, but they feel intimidated into participating.

Candidate blogging is part of the newspaper’s increasing reliance on “crowd sourcing” to provide content for its print and online editions, even as the company cuts staffing levels. The latest buzzword in corporate newsrooms, crowd sourcing involves using the Internet to gather information from a large group of people, most of whom aren’t trained journalists.

The Enquirer insists it’s trying to increase public access to the candidates, but it’s well-known in journalism circles that The Gannett Co., owner of The Enquirer, places a premium on Internet traffic and even bases the bonuses for some editors on how many user “hits’ an article receives online.

The newspaper isn’t exactly trying to conceal details about its revamped endorsement process.

Here’s how it was explained to readers of The Enquirer’s print edition by Editorial Page Editor David Wells on Sept. 30: “In a few weeks the editorial board will publish its endorsements. The discussions and comments fostered by this blog will carry weight in our deliberations.”

Cincinnati’s dominant media outlet claims its goal is noble. From the same print explanation: “Candidates with smaller budgets or lower name recognition have in the past complained that the media never give them as much attention as better-known opponents. Some candidates have new ideas, but if their voices aren't heard, the voters never get to know about them. The process we begin today aims to overcome those complaints by giving each candidate an equal forum and equal access to The Enquirer’s reach.”

Not quite. A closer analysis reveals numerous flaws with that hypothesis.

First, if The Enquirer truly wanted to use its considerable “reach” to benefit lesser-known candidates, it would publish the material in the newspaper itself, in a printed supplement to the paper or on its much more widely read “Politics Extra” blog. “Today at the Forum” is merely one of 26 blogs operated by The Enquirer, and not a particularly popular one at that. In the past, the newspaper has pulled the plug on blogs that didn’t receive enough user hits. (“Academentia” and “Lit Chick,” we hardly knew ye.)

Publishing a separate supplement isn’t an unreasonable idea. The Enquirer does them regularly, including publishing a 14 page-plus insert on local football teams each fall. If tossing a ball down a field warrants the extra resources, shouldn’t matters of local government get the extra focus, too?

It would be a relatively simple task for the newspaper’s circulation department to “zone” the supplement so it would only go to subscribers within city limits, which also would reduce its cost. Regardless, the poverty defense rings hollow as the newspaper regularly spends more annually on niche publications and Gannet reported more than $8 billion in operating revenues last year.

Another weakness is the newspaper opened the blog forum to all 26 candidates, including incumbents who already receive coverage in news articles. So far, among the most active bloggers are incumbents Jeff Berding, Leslie Ghiz and Chris Monzel, along with former Councilman Charlie Winburn, all of who have copious amounts of cash for campaigning.

If helping “candidates with smaller budgets or lower name recognition” is the goal, why not limit participation to non-incumbents?

In reality, the format has several glaring weaknesses. Seasoned local political veterans are quietly admitting that campaign staffers are planting many of the questions. Staffers also are writing the replies in many instances, not the candidates themselves.

The format has mostly resulted in a jumbled, hard-to-follow mess that is of limited value to readers.

Let’s hope in the next election The Enquirer places a greater premium on serving the public interest than increasing its Web traffic.

— Kevin Osborne

Comments

[Kevin Osborne]

UPDATE: The Enquirer's new concept doesn't seem to be working too well.

According to some numbers quickly crunched by one of our editors as of about 4:30 p.m. Friday, only 16 questions have been posed to council candidates on the
"Community Conversation" section.

(For the average citizen to find the section, it takes a few clicks and a little know how. It's located here.)

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=convo

Anyhow, 29 total responses have been posted by just nine different candidates. (Eby - 7, Winburn - 5, Monzel - 5, Ghiz - 4)

Also, eight of the 29 responses have received reader comments. There have been a total of 25 comments posted, most anonymously.

[David E. Gallaher]

"The format has mostly resulted in a jumbled, hard-to-follow mess that is of limited value to readers."

I noticed that, but whose fault is it? Mostly the candidates.

Call me Polyanna, but are we headed toward a world where everyone should have basic skills in quickly putting thoughts into words in cyberspace? It would be a huge improvement over the age of television, where all that mattered was a pretty or handsome face.

Full disclosure: I'm a peaceful anarchist delighted to see candidates expose themselves as the clowns running for Clowncil, that they are. Good for the Enquirer say I for setting a reasonable hurdle.

[Digital Revolution]

Their paper is still completely biased and a piece of sh$t!

We already have blogs. We don't need their help creating a blog. We need them to do their job and give plenty of coverage to an important election process. They won't because they are status quo hos!

[CincyCapell]

Maybe if Jeffre or Patton could restrain themselves from ranting at the Beacon they could actually reach out to more than 7 people. Maybe they would not be regarded as the joke that they are then.

[CincyCramerding]

I apologize for impersonating others. I know it's just not right. People must wonder how I have so much time on my hands, with all the work I'm actually paid to do.

Justin Jeffre and Michael Patton are good candidates. They just need more opportunities to get their message out instead of having it disrupted by fools like me with nothing to add to the conversation.