|
Soapbox Philosophy: Clinton question turned unintentionally muddy
by Gregory R. Norfleet · Op-Ed · October 27, 2016
In an effort to create a simple and direct question, apparently I stepped into the mud.
My apologies.
The reaction on Facebook to our political question from last Wednesday returned a mixed response, much to my surprise. For those who missed it, the question, which was originally posted on Twitter with a multiple-choice poll, was: “For the anyone-but@HillaryClinton crowd, how will you vote?”
Readers felt the wording was “one-sided” or “pre-determined” and questioned our journalistic standards.
Ouch.
I hope folks realize that was not my intention.
Sure, my columns tend to lean right, but I take great pains to not let that influence our news coverage, and that includes the occasional online poll.
I saw a couple comments figuring we would post a similar question and swap in the name of Republican nominee Donald Trump. I will be honest that I, at first, did not intend to do the same. Every four years, both sides claim to see “division” in the other party, in an effort to make the opposition appear weak. This year, however, that is certainly the case with the Grand Old Party.
Call me a downer, but I don’t see Trump or even former GOP’er Gary Johnson getting in. The power-versus-values conflict will not get settled before election day. I thought this Republican battle far overshadowed the Clinton-Bernie Sanders rift, even with the WikiLeaks revelations. However, perhaps the flip-side question would restore the balance with our readers. And, maybe, the poll would reveal to me something that is already clear to those on the left.
I can’t say it did.
Still confused by the backlash, I contacted a friend who proudly leans left, lives in West Branch and is supporting the Democratic nominee. I simply asked her to react to the question, without, at first, telling her why. Her first reaction to the question was not emotional — she simply pointed out the obvious fact that we could not limit the question to people intending to vote. Non-voters could have answered the question, too.
So I shared some of the comments that confused me, and asked her if she felt my question was too pejorative. Not really, she said, but perhaps I’m not too far off.
She theorized that, with such an acrimonious campaign, rather than the newspaper staying above the fray, we acknowledged that negativity, accepted it and stepped right in.
By allowing the “anyone-but-Hillary” phrase into the question, we were allowing Clinton’s opponents’ mud to reach the readers. That’s why putting Trump’s name in the same question did not make the same folks happy.
Rewording the question to something like “For those not planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, how do you plan to vote?” may have diffused some of the emotion.
It is the role of a newspaper to help polarize the voters. We can do this by presenting facts and arguments, or by asking questions to challenge beliefs or bring thoughts to a conclusion. Polarizing is not angering nor is it oppressing; polarizing is meant to help clarify opinions. People with strong opinions vote more, talk to legislators more, share with others more, etc. My interest was to ask folks struggling with the original question to reveal their point-in-time conclusion.
That was my goal. I certainly did not mean to do dive into the mud. I will strive to do better.
Gregory R. Norfleet is the editor of the West Branch Times. You may reach him at gregory@westbranchtimes.com or 319-643-2131.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
