Soccer Dad

A 10 year old grievance

The guys at Real Clear Politics have made it into an essential site. If you're liberal you may not like their commentary, but if you want to explore all sides on an issue, you must use RCP to find out what the most important columnists (left and right) are writing about a given issue.
Usually their commentaries are on the mark. But there was one shortly after the election that I disagree with, "THE OBSESSION OVER NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS"(scroll to the end of the page):

This year merely confirmed yet again what we know to be true: while newspaper endorsements have some influence in local and state races where voters may not know the candidates and are seeking some guidance, at the federal level newspaper endorsements don't mean squat. Of course, this won't stop some from obsessing over who endorses whom in 2008.

Actually just because percentage of endorsements each candidate received was inversely proportional to the percentage of electoral votes they received doesn't mean that endorsements have no effect.
The first reason is obvious. People read newspapers and trust the editors to weigh the evidence for and against each candidate fairly. When the editors solemnly declare their support for one or the other candidate, there are people who take that endorsement seriously and vote accordingly. (Papers often run their endorsements on election day in a format that makes it easy for the voter to cut it out and bring it with him/her to the voting booth. If no one was interested in what the paper had to say, they wouldn't do this.
The second reason is that despite the claims that there's a wall between the editorial and news divisions, that claim is bunk. Newspapers usually have certain assumptions. Those assumptions sway not only the opinion editors but the news editors who determine what is and isn't important for their readers to know.
In a recent entry, Commonwealth Conservative expresses this concern regarding the VA gubernatorial election later this year:

What Kilgore has going against him is two-fold. First, the MSM is in the camp of the tax-and-spenders, for the most part – especially the Washington Post, which has some influence within the state. Secondly – and this is another thing that gives the MSM joy beyond reason – there continue to be rumors about a split in the GOP based on the fact that a group of 17 or so Republicans refused to hold the party line on taxes.

To demonstrate why this is a concern and should be ignored, I'd like to take you back ten years. I remember election night Nov 8, 1994 very well. Republican Ellen Sauerbrey the outgoing minority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates appeared on the verge of pulling off an upset of Prince George's County Executive Parris Glendening. Though I often think he embelleshes, this is how it was described by Rober Novak in "BEHIND SAUERBREY'S DEFEAT" (Washington Post, Nov 28, 1994):

Sauerbrey late on Nov. 8 seemed headed for an improbable upset. As reported by Baltimore Channel 11, she had a 4,630-vote lead at 11:54 p.m. with 98 percent of the vote in. For the next 19 minutes, not a single additional vote was announced.

Then, at 12:13 a.m., a rush of Baltimore inner-city tallies gave Glendening a 4,779-vote lead with 99 percent counted. The apparent winning margin came from Baltimore precincts controlled by Larry Gibson, Mayor Kurt Schmoke's political organizer, strategist and patronage dispenser. Turnout in Gibson's precincts ranged between 48 percent and 60 percent, while it was 27 percent to 36 percent in nearby black precincts.

For me, the race in Washington state is deja vu (all over again.) Like Rossi, Sauerbrey was leading and then, miraculously, just enough votes appeared to push her opponent over the top. (In fairness to Glendening, his vote differential was greater than Gregoire's.) Needless to say it seemed awfully fishy.
Mrs. Sauerbrey spent the next several weeks trying to prove that there was massive fraud that benefitted Glendening, but her case didn't hold up. (She had to file suit claiming fraud to contest the election, apparently Maryland does not have a recount law.) Still during the process she was mocked repeatedly by the liberal media - the same folks who encouraged Al Gore in Florida 2000 - as a sore loser.
No I'm not off topic. The reason Sauerbrey almost won is that she ran an excellent focused campaign and her message about limited government struck a chord with many Marylanders. The one precinct where it did not take hold was in the MSM.
The two largetst newspapers in Maryland, the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun focused their editorials and reports on portraying the race between a fiscally responsible Democrat and a reckless tax cutting Republican. Anything to the contrary got no attention in those papers. For example here's an excerpt from the final editorial endorsing Glendening, "CHOICES FOR MARYLAND VOTERS" (Nov 5, 1994):

MARYLANDERS from every corner of the state have an opportunity Tuesday to elect an exceptional candidate to be their governor: Parris Glendening. He is not only the best prepared candidate in memory to seek the job but also by far the most likely to work effectively with the legislature on realistic, affordable responses to the expectations of voters. Mr. Glendening's focus on jobs and education -- and on cost-cutting -- is based on thorough analyses and years of able management that have won support from an unusually broad range of constituents and groups in Prince George's County. In sharp contrast, Ellen Sauerbrey has concocted a dangerous, bait-and-switch fiscal formula disguised as a tax break; it is a numbers game that would shift tax burdens from state income tax bills to local property bills while choking essential services more each passing year.

Glendening's endorsement was based on "affordable responses to the expectations of voters" and "cost-cutting." That's what the Post wanted us to believe. The problem was: it wasn't true.
Ten days after the election the Post reported that Glendening's successor in PG County, Wayne Curry had some problems, "CURRY SEEKS AUTHORITY TO RAISE PROPERTY TAX, P.G. FACES MAJOR SHORTFALL, NEW LEADER SAYS"(Dec 18, 1994):

Prince George's County Execustive-elect Wayne K. Curry says he will ask the state legislature for authority to raise the county's limit on property taxes and establish new taxes on casino gambling and telephone services, if necessary, to stave off a shortfall estimated at tens of millions of dollars in his first budgetCurry's transition team is not expected to complete a thorough review of county finances for weeks. But he said he was forced to submit his proposals because of a Nov. 14 deadline for submitting requests to the House of Delegates for the legislative session that begins in January.

A few weeks later the Post got a more exact number to the deficit, "P.G. FACES $107 MILLION GAP" (Dec 3, 1994)

Prince George's County government faces a $107 million shortfall next year and must adopt "very severe and draconian measures" to cut expenses in order to balance its budget, County Executive-elect Wayne KCurry said yesterday.

Curry, even before he takes office on Monday, painted a dire picture of what lies ahead for his government and the county's 750,000 residents as he received a preliminary report from his fiscal stability and government restructuring committee.

The fiscal cloud appeared only days after the election when Curry disclosed a shortfall then believed to be in the tens of millions of dollars and suggested that tax measures might be needed to close the gap.

I take issue with that last paragraph. The fiscal cloud didn't just "appear only days" after the election. No doubt the data was there, for someone who wanted to look at it. Certainly an enterprising reporter for a prestigious newspaper like the Washington Post was capable of digging deeply enough into the finances of a neighboring county and ask the necessary questions to determine if the candidate for Governor was really as responsible as advertised. But there were limits. Apparently the Post didn't care to find out if its guy was as restrained as it claimed. It's a shame because this crucial piece of information was not given to the electorate prior to the election.
If the Post had to curb its enthusiasm might its guy not have won? Given the closeness of the election that's certainly possible.
The other problem with the Post's failure is not just that discovering and reporting the deficit would have hurt its candidate, it was an important piece of information for anyone wanting to know how Parris Glendening would act in office. In the late 90's when the economy was booming, Glendening expanded programs that could not be sustained when the economy slowed and when he left office in 2002, the state had a $1 billion deficit due to his profligacy. The deficit in PG County foretold Glendening's recklessness, but the electorate was uninformed.
There are consequences to that deficit that are still being felt. This week in "Gov Ehrlich at Midterm" the Post, after crediting the Governor with progress in some areas lashes into him:

The governor's reluctance to compromise on taxes and slots is matched by his record on medical malpractice insurance. He rightly called attention to the soaring malpractice premiums threatening physicians' practices, summoned experts and lawmakers in search of a solution, and rallied doctors and hospitals. But when a year-end special session of the General Assembly offered a solution last month, he refused to accept it, though it would defuse the crisis he did so much to publicize. His stated reason -- that he dislikes the 2 percent tax on HMO premiums that the legislature would use to pay for a stabilization fund -- may be shrewd politics. But it is poor governance, and it raises a question: Would Mr. Ehrlich prefer a fix, albeit an imperfect one, or an issue for 2006?

Mr. Ehrlich may yet prove himself an able governor. But to do so he will need real achievements in taming the state's fiscal and budgetary problems. That will take some of the pragmatism and flexibility he displayed as a candidate. Conceivably, four years of stalemate could prove a winning formula for Mr. Ehrlich's reelection. But it would be at Maryland's considerable expense.

I suspect that most of the state's budgetary problems will subside with a growing economy and holding the line on spending. And there was a lot wrong with the medical malpractice bill that he vetoed (though it was overridden). (I heard that one of the provisions would affect homeowners insurance in a negative way. What a homeowner's insurance provision has to do with medical malpractice is beyond me.
It is hypocritical for the Post to lament the state of Maryland's finances when it didn't do its due dilligence to make sure that Maryland voters picked a fiscally responsible governor ten years ago. And of course the Post only provided one way of looking at the Governor's record.
Blair Lee a columnist with the Gazette Newspapers, had a column a few months ago that put things in a different perspective(read the whole column, not just this relevant quote):

Democrats and the media have made it an article of faith that Gov. Ehrlich raised University of Maryland tuitions 22 percent. Honest journalists would explain that Ehrlich inherited a state treasury bankrupted by the Democratic legislature's reckless, unfunded $1.3 billion K-12 school spending increase. So Ehrlich faced two choices, raise revenues (he chose slots instead of taxes) or cut discretionary spending. When Ehrlich and the House of Delegates deadlocked on slots vs. taxes, only spending cuts were left.

Unfortunately, the bulk of Maryland's budget is mandated spending that cannot be reduced. The biggest discretionary spending target is higher ed so the university system suffered huge cuts. In response, the universities hiked tuitions and blamed Ehrlich, as did the Democrats and the media gladly echoed the theme. The result was a conscious misrepresentation causing the governor political damage.

The power the press has in influencing elections is significant. If it doesn't do its job properly and advocates instead enlightens, the consequences can be huge as we see in Maryland. Hopefully the Post will stop picking on Killgore in VA and make an effort at reporting the race fairly. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by SoccerDad at January 14, 2005 03:04 AM | TrackBack