0
The Connection endorses municipal candidates
18 October 2010
I was one of the candidates endorsed for council by the Collingwood Connection, this week. Some people - including some candidates - think media endorsement is the mark of credibility. Others think of it as the kiss of death.
Of course, since the endorsement comes this late, it is unlikely that it will affect a lot of votes (most of the mail-in ballots have already been sent in). What it does tell us is, though, how one of the main media outlets in this community views the race and the choices.
The Connection has endorsed Sandra Cooper for mayor, noting, "Cooper will be a great ambassador for the community and we believe is someone who will bring council together and bring respect back to the table."
A bit further in the editorial, the Connection says, "Above all else, Cooper is a good listener and a person of integrity." That begs the question, does that suggest the other candidates are NOT those things? Or merely that Sandra is better at them than the rest?
Rick Lloyd is the Connection's choice for Deputy Mayor, saying, "In 2006, we endorsed Lloyd for mayor as we felt he had the best vision for the municipality and we still believe in his vision for Collingwood... Lloyd will help build camaraderie among council. We believe Lloyd will be a strong voice for Collingwood at the County of Simcoe and will work well with the new mayor."
That last comment has certainly been a topic of discussion among people I've spoken with: who will work best with Sandra, if she gets elected (and all bets seem to be on her). Sandra, I'm sure, will work with anyone, but this term has scuffled a bit with Councillor Sandberg over some issues. Last term, as I recall, she and Rick got along quite well. Most residents I have talked to want to see a more cooperative council next term, and move away from the divisive, autocratic style we see today.
For council, the Connection chose Mike Edwards, Dale West, Donna Mansfield, Keith Hull, Kevin Lloyd, Mike Christie and me. The editorial suggests the choice must have been difficult: "We believe this year's crop of council candidates is one of the best Collingwood has seen in a long time and there are a lot of first-time candidates, who deserve a chance to serve the community."
One incumbent told a local reporter that he was running again (despite previous comments to the contrary) because he didn't see "seven good candidates" among those who had filed. To me, that's arrogant. I agree with the Connection's view: there are a lot of good candidates in the race, and I feel honoured to be among them.
This is the first time in four campaigns I've received the nod from the Connection. Not being endorsed didn't seem to hurt my election results in the past, but it hasn't helped every candidate, either (Rick Lloyd lost the mayoralty race in 2006, despite the Connection's endorsement).*
Most of the endorsements run parallel to the comments I've been hearing, and to the polls on Scoop's East End Underground. Mike Christie may be the exception. And the Connection makes an interesting comment about him: "Michael Christie's decision to support patios at the curb may not be a popular one by the public but his experience in business, as BIA chair and on the parking advisory committee make him more than qualified to serve as a councillor."
What qualifies anyone to run for council? Anyone who can legally vote in a a town can run in that municipality. But I personally think people who have had experience serving the community have a leg up on others without that experience. Those who have sat on committees, boards, service clubs, or as local volunteers have learned the basics of cooperation, of setting goals, of giving service, and a bit about meeting protocols and the hierarchy of organizations. They have become part of the many community networks and gain some name recognition from their peers.
I tend to favour those who have a record of community service when asked for my recommendations. A lot of people run because they have served on this level and want to move up to a more active role in policy making and strategic planning. While this experience doesn't guarantee someone will be a good politician - any more than being a good passenger in a car pool means you will be a good driver - it does show that person's willingness to give to the community for the greater good and to work for common goals.
But I also respect business experience and believe that we need a stronger consideration for local businesses and business interests in our decisions.
About me, the Connection says I am, "...the only other incumbent councillor we are supporting. Chadwick championed the cause to have a referendum on the ballot regarding a ward system, which is admirable. It might not be the best idea for Collingwood but the public should decide how they want to vote. He also stood up for principles on in-camera meetings and was a strong voice against continuing the educational development charge fight."
I feel somewhat vindicated and pleased that the paper recognized some of my efforts, even if some on council (like the mayor) did not. However it is, of course, the public who has the final say whether it was worth the fight, and that will be revealed late in the evening on October 25th.
Rather interestingly, the main issues that seem to have galvanized public opinion - Admiral Collingwood development, the patios, the ward system, in camera meetings, the debenture debt - were not discussed in the editorial and candidates' individual opinions on them (or their voting records) were not mentioned, although I suspect they were taken into account in the decisions.
The editorial ends with the warning, "Don't let Collingwood be run by the loud minority." That should be a reminder to residents of how the previous election was dominated by the efforts of two special interest groups.
To read the full article, visit the Connection's online site here or read this weekend's paper.
While I am grateful for, and am humbled by, their editorial endorsement, I don't believe newspapers should, in general, endorse candidates, especially on this level. More on that thought a bit later, but it's been a debate that has raged ever since newspapers were first printed and continues unabated online.
In a previous editorial, the Connection explained why it endorsed election candidates:
While I agree with most of the above, as a former newspaper editor and reporter, I am still uncomfortable about media endorsements at this level.
I suspect there will be resentment on the part of those not endorsed, who get elected regardless. As a case in point, consider our current mayor, who was not endorsed in 2006. His relationship with the media has been - to be polite - less than positive most of the time and often confrontational. His dismissal of electronic journalists as "e-media wannabes" did nothing to improve that.
I always believed - passionately - that the media should be editorially neutral and objective except in times of extreme duress. Not merely because it might affect the relationship between the politicians and the endorsing media in future, but because it could call into question the objectivity of reporting and coverage.
I personally don't believe such endorsements actually change a lot of votes - at upper levels of government where party politics are in play, they only confirm readers' beliefs in the party-orientation of the paper. Having a Liberal, NDP or Conservative editorial bias in the media seems expected.
Any influence a newspaper may have had on public opinion has long been eroded by the competition from other media, from radio to the Internet, so endorsements may have less impact than they had historically.
Yes, newspapers have as long a history of endorsing candidates as they have of refraining from doing so. But partisanship is generally waged along party lines and, at least in small towns like this, municipal politicians are allegedly independents. Municipal politics are supposed to be above party politics: we are elected as independents and should be able to work with any government regardless of its stripe. We are not elected as party members.
Or at least that's the way it's supposed to be (it certainly didn't seem so when our mayor's last election literature had pictures of himself with the Conservative MP as an endorsement!).
I wrote about this back in 2006. Re-reading that piece, most of my comments still stand. I think that the public is best served if they perceive their media as objective, and the relationship between politicians and media is likely to be smoother if their bias is not so obvious. We expect the media to be critics of politicians, their policies and their decisions, but we want to believe that criticism is grounded in neutrality, not partisanship.
I know all of the local media people and I know where their personal sympathies lie with regard to many politicians and issues. But I also know (and firmly believe, based on a decade's experience working in the local media) that they report on what they see from as objective a position as is possible, and that their personal views seldom interject themselves into their articles. I don't expect that my being endorsed by the Connection will make their reporter more favourable in his coverage of me if I am re-elected. I expect he will do his job as he always has and poke a sharp editorial stick at me when I screw up. But will all readers feel the same towards his coverage?
To be human is to have an opinion. Not one of us is above bias. But I believe that to strive towards neutrality and objectivity provides the leadership and honesty we want in the media.
~~~~~
* However, not being endorsed did not make me bitter or angry towards the local media, either. I have a good relationship with the local reporters and trust their discretion and tact. I respect them for their work and their efforts and even when we disagree, we have been able to work together. I have not always seen eye-to-eye with their opinions, but that's democracy. I trust that their reporting has been objective and fair and when they have been critical, I have always assumed I must have deserved at least some of it.
Of course, since the endorsement comes this late, it is unlikely that it will affect a lot of votes (most of the mail-in ballots have already been sent in). What it does tell us is, though, how one of the main media outlets in this community views the race and the choices.
The Connection has endorsed Sandra Cooper for mayor, noting, "Cooper will be a great ambassador for the community and we believe is someone who will bring council together and bring respect back to the table."
A bit further in the editorial, the Connection says, "Above all else, Cooper is a good listener and a person of integrity." That begs the question, does that suggest the other candidates are NOT those things? Or merely that Sandra is better at them than the rest?
Rick Lloyd is the Connection's choice for Deputy Mayor, saying, "In 2006, we endorsed Lloyd for mayor as we felt he had the best vision for the municipality and we still believe in his vision for Collingwood... Lloyd will help build camaraderie among council. We believe Lloyd will be a strong voice for Collingwood at the County of Simcoe and will work well with the new mayor."
That last comment has certainly been a topic of discussion among people I've spoken with: who will work best with Sandra, if she gets elected (and all bets seem to be on her). Sandra, I'm sure, will work with anyone, but this term has scuffled a bit with Councillor Sandberg over some issues. Last term, as I recall, she and Rick got along quite well. Most residents I have talked to want to see a more cooperative council next term, and move away from the divisive, autocratic style we see today.
For council, the Connection chose Mike Edwards, Dale West, Donna Mansfield, Keith Hull, Kevin Lloyd, Mike Christie and me. The editorial suggests the choice must have been difficult: "We believe this year's crop of council candidates is one of the best Collingwood has seen in a long time and there are a lot of first-time candidates, who deserve a chance to serve the community."
One incumbent told a local reporter that he was running again (despite previous comments to the contrary) because he didn't see "seven good candidates" among those who had filed. To me, that's arrogant. I agree with the Connection's view: there are a lot of good candidates in the race, and I feel honoured to be among them.
This is the first time in four campaigns I've received the nod from the Connection. Not being endorsed didn't seem to hurt my election results in the past, but it hasn't helped every candidate, either (Rick Lloyd lost the mayoralty race in 2006, despite the Connection's endorsement).*
Most of the endorsements run parallel to the comments I've been hearing, and to the polls on Scoop's East End Underground. Mike Christie may be the exception. And the Connection makes an interesting comment about him: "Michael Christie's decision to support patios at the curb may not be a popular one by the public but his experience in business, as BIA chair and on the parking advisory committee make him more than qualified to serve as a councillor."
What qualifies anyone to run for council? Anyone who can legally vote in a a town can run in that municipality. But I personally think people who have had experience serving the community have a leg up on others without that experience. Those who have sat on committees, boards, service clubs, or as local volunteers have learned the basics of cooperation, of setting goals, of giving service, and a bit about meeting protocols and the hierarchy of organizations. They have become part of the many community networks and gain some name recognition from their peers.
I tend to favour those who have a record of community service when asked for my recommendations. A lot of people run because they have served on this level and want to move up to a more active role in policy making and strategic planning. While this experience doesn't guarantee someone will be a good politician - any more than being a good passenger in a car pool means you will be a good driver - it does show that person's willingness to give to the community for the greater good and to work for common goals.
But I also respect business experience and believe that we need a stronger consideration for local businesses and business interests in our decisions.
About me, the Connection says I am, "...the only other incumbent councillor we are supporting. Chadwick championed the cause to have a referendum on the ballot regarding a ward system, which is admirable. It might not be the best idea for Collingwood but the public should decide how they want to vote. He also stood up for principles on in-camera meetings and was a strong voice against continuing the educational development charge fight."
I feel somewhat vindicated and pleased that the paper recognized some of my efforts, even if some on council (like the mayor) did not. However it is, of course, the public who has the final say whether it was worth the fight, and that will be revealed late in the evening on October 25th.
Rather interestingly, the main issues that seem to have galvanized public opinion - Admiral Collingwood development, the patios, the ward system, in camera meetings, the debenture debt - were not discussed in the editorial and candidates' individual opinions on them (or their voting records) were not mentioned, although I suspect they were taken into account in the decisions.
The editorial ends with the warning, "Don't let Collingwood be run by the loud minority." That should be a reminder to residents of how the previous election was dominated by the efforts of two special interest groups.
To read the full article, visit the Connection's online site here or read this weekend's paper.
While I am grateful for, and am humbled by, their editorial endorsement, I don't believe newspapers should, in general, endorse candidates, especially on this level. More on that thought a bit later, but it's been a debate that has raged ever since newspapers were first printed and continues unabated online.
In a previous editorial, the Connection explained why it endorsed election candidates:
Quote
The choices will be based on information from the profile pieces that ran in this newspaper and from a series of questions put to candidates as well as assessing each candidate against a lengthy list of criteria set out by an editorial board of Metroland North Media Group which lists qualities ideal candidates for municipal public office should hold.
This slate will also take into account the performance of candidates at all candidates meetings as well as the performance and record of incumbents at council meetings over the past four years.
Some suggest it's inappropriate for a newspaper to take such a position, but we simply don't agree.
Newspapers have a long history of using their editorial and opinion pages to take a stance.
Authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write in their book, The Elements of Journalism, "The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing."...
The goal is to create discussion and debate in the community about all the candidates and the issues. Helping create such conversations is part of what a good community newspaper does.
"A newspaper that does not challenge its community's values and preconceptions will lose respect for failing to provide the honesty and leadership that newspapers are excited to offer," said Jack Fuller, former president of the Tribune Publishing Company.
Publishing a slate provides such honesty and leadership.
... Apathy at election time does not generally lead to good government, but it does give us the government we deserve.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with us.
What counts is that you vote.
This slate will also take into account the performance of candidates at all candidates meetings as well as the performance and record of incumbents at council meetings over the past four years.
Some suggest it's inappropriate for a newspaper to take such a position, but we simply don't agree.
Newspapers have a long history of using their editorial and opinion pages to take a stance.
Authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write in their book, The Elements of Journalism, "The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing."...
The goal is to create discussion and debate in the community about all the candidates and the issues. Helping create such conversations is part of what a good community newspaper does.
"A newspaper that does not challenge its community's values and preconceptions will lose respect for failing to provide the honesty and leadership that newspapers are excited to offer," said Jack Fuller, former president of the Tribune Publishing Company.
Publishing a slate provides such honesty and leadership.
... Apathy at election time does not generally lead to good government, but it does give us the government we deserve.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with us.
What counts is that you vote.
While I agree with most of the above, as a former newspaper editor and reporter, I am still uncomfortable about media endorsements at this level.
I suspect there will be resentment on the part of those not endorsed, who get elected regardless. As a case in point, consider our current mayor, who was not endorsed in 2006. His relationship with the media has been - to be polite - less than positive most of the time and often confrontational. His dismissal of electronic journalists as "e-media wannabes" did nothing to improve that.
I always believed - passionately - that the media should be editorially neutral and objective except in times of extreme duress. Not merely because it might affect the relationship between the politicians and the endorsing media in future, but because it could call into question the objectivity of reporting and coverage.
I personally don't believe such endorsements actually change a lot of votes - at upper levels of government where party politics are in play, they only confirm readers' beliefs in the party-orientation of the paper. Having a Liberal, NDP or Conservative editorial bias in the media seems expected.
Any influence a newspaper may have had on public opinion has long been eroded by the competition from other media, from radio to the Internet, so endorsements may have less impact than they had historically.
Yes, newspapers have as long a history of endorsing candidates as they have of refraining from doing so. But partisanship is generally waged along party lines and, at least in small towns like this, municipal politicians are allegedly independents. Municipal politics are supposed to be above party politics: we are elected as independents and should be able to work with any government regardless of its stripe. We are not elected as party members.
Or at least that's the way it's supposed to be (it certainly didn't seem so when our mayor's last election literature had pictures of himself with the Conservative MP as an endorsement!).
I wrote about this back in 2006. Re-reading that piece, most of my comments still stand. I think that the public is best served if they perceive their media as objective, and the relationship between politicians and media is likely to be smoother if their bias is not so obvious. We expect the media to be critics of politicians, their policies and their decisions, but we want to believe that criticism is grounded in neutrality, not partisanship.
I know all of the local media people and I know where their personal sympathies lie with regard to many politicians and issues. But I also know (and firmly believe, based on a decade's experience working in the local media) that they report on what they see from as objective a position as is possible, and that their personal views seldom interject themselves into their articles. I don't expect that my being endorsed by the Connection will make their reporter more favourable in his coverage of me if I am re-elected. I expect he will do his job as he always has and poke a sharp editorial stick at me when I screw up. But will all readers feel the same towards his coverage?
To be human is to have an opinion. Not one of us is above bias. But I believe that to strive towards neutrality and objectivity provides the leadership and honesty we want in the media.
~~~~~
* However, not being endorsed did not make me bitter or angry towards the local media, either. I have a good relationship with the local reporters and trust their discretion and tact. I respect them for their work and their efforts and even when we disagree, we have been able to work together. I have not always seen eye-to-eye with their opinions, but that's democracy. I trust that their reporting has been objective and fair and when they have been critical, I have always assumed I must have deserved at least some of it.
