For the first time in the paper’s history, the Richmond Times-Dispatch has opted not to endorse a candidate in Virginia’s gubernatorial election. Not only is this a cop-out on the part of the paper’s editorial board, but the paper’s refusal to take a position on whom to vote for is irresponsible to its readers.
Newspapers have an obligation to inform their readers, and in that role newspapers should strive to be unbiased. In the editorial section, however, a newspaper’s obligation is to inform readers, subjectively, on what the best course of action will be in the controversies facing them. The Times-Dispatch’s endorsement (or lack thereof) of a candidate probably won’t have a dramatic effect on the election — the level of influence of newspaper endorsements has been decreasing for some time — but it is nevertheless reasonable for readers to expect an endorsement. Voters still care, albeit to varying degrees, about the advice of their local newspapers, and subscribed readers pay for the privilege of reading that advice. When the editorial board refuses to take a stance on an issue, subscribed readers are not getting their money’s worth.
Aside from failing to fulfill its obligations to its readers, the Times-Dispatch is also endorsing something demeaning to our system of elections; it is tacitly favoring abstention from voting. As those on the editorial board of the Times-Dispatch well know, one of the three candidates in this election will ultimately become governor. There is therefore no reason not to choose one candidate to vote for; even if none are ideal, there is always a lesser evil. The governor will have a measurable effect on Virginia policy over the next four years; it is irresponsible for the newspaper not to advocate for whom they perceive to be the least offensive candidate. At the very least, if the newspaper really cannot in good conscience endorse one of these candidates, it should suggest an alternative to voting for one of them (e.g. writing someone in on the ballot).
The likely explanation for the paper’s stance is that, as a historically conservative paper, though they have made emphatic objections to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, they will not go as far as endorsing a non-Republican candidate. This reluctance is understandable but should not ultimately be inhibiting. It would be better for the paper to reluctantly endorse an opposing party’s candidate than none at all.
The paper’s arguments seem to suggest that the best of the bad bunch is Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe. The Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, is the recipient of the fewest attacks in the editorial, but the article essentially says that libertarian ideology is not realistic in Virginia’s political climate, thus ruling him out as a viable contender. But the paper never expressly ranks these candidates, and readers who want to determine whom the board views as a better candidate have to read between the lines. This is not to say that readers can’t do this, or that they absolutely need to in order to make an informed choice — there are obviously other sources of information out there. But, regardless of the editorial board’s goal of generally lamenting this election, the Times-Dispatch is still supposed to be a primary source of information. It is a waste of voters’ time to comb through the paper’s complaints in their effort to determine whom to vote for.
Perhaps the editorial board’s worst offense is the pointlessness of its piece. The article does not offer a course of action; it bemoans this election, but gives no alternative to the options available (mainly because, aside from abstention — which is not really a viable option — there are none). The frustrating nature of this election has been pointed out plenty of times; there is nothing to be gained from complaining about it more. The paper has pointed out the undeniable difficulties in voting in this election, but without being part of any possible solutions.
Dani Bernstein is a Viewpoint columnist for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
