We're unapologetic skeptics, especially during election season | A note from the editor
The election is over. Now that the campaign mailers have stopped, our kitchen recycling bin might last more than a day before it needs emptied.
My inbox also has been flooded, as I’m sure yours has, but not all the election email has been spam. Many of you have written with questions, complaints and even praise about our coverage leading up to the midterms.
A friend I know through Boy Scouts (he was one of the Scoutmasters of my old troop in Forest Park) wrote to question our story about pricing errors at Family Dollar stores in Butler County. Auditor Roger Reynolds issued a news release less than a week before the election revealing that pricing errors were found at all 13 stores in the county, the vast majority of the discrepancies falling in favor of the retailer. In the story, we pointed out that Reynolds, who won reelection Tuesday night, was indicted on five public corruption charges by a grand jury in February.
“Reynolds’ legal troubles have nothing to do with the pricing issues,” my friend wrote. “It appears to be a backdoor way of hurting Reynolds and his election chances … his party affiliation (Republican) and his legal issues have nothing to do with the premise of the article.”
It's a valid question, and it deserves a response. Call me a skeptic (a badge of honor for most journalists), but in my opinion the timing of Reynolds’ news release was not coincidental. It’s a classic political maneuver for embattled incumbents to release some “good news” right before an election. News organizations must guard against being used this way, so the decision was made to include what we deemed pertinent background information on the auditor – extremely relevant for voters in Butler County. Agree? Disagree? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Several readers wrote to ask why we didn’t endorse candidates, a policy we’ve had since the 2018 election. I’ve written about this before, but here’s the short answer: You don’t need us to tell you whom to vote for.
Read more: Rethinking the newspaper endorsement
Yes, we provide insight and analysis. We delineate where the candidates differ on the issues relevant to their office, and sometimes we even break news when we do background checks on public officials. But we stop short of telling you which candidate deserves your vote.
And full disclosure: Endorsements aren’t exactly good for business. You’d be hard pressed to find another company that knowingly makes a practice of angering half its customer base – although Elon Musk seems to be flirting with the idea if he goes through with plans to charge Twitter users for verified accounts.
We do, however, make endorsements on issues, but we do so with great care and only after taking the time to meet with those in support and those against. We also open up our pages and digital platforms to debate and discussion on ballot measures. A reader from Clifton thanked us for publishing opinions contrary to our editorial that opposed Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that requires judges to factor in public safety when setting bail amounts.
“I want to commend the Enquirer for running the Sunday opinion piece by the two judges who support Issue 1,” he wrote. “Your editorial board opposes it. Those judges support it. Both sides were heard without the Enquirer filtering the content, and for that you deserve credit.”
For the record, our editorial board was not unanimous in its denouncement of Issue 1. Mack Mariani, one of three community members on our board, wrote a dissenting opinion. Turns out the majority of Ohio voters agreed with the Xavier political science professor. Issue 1 passed with 78% of the vote.
•••
A quick update. In a recent column I was critical of Hamilton County leaders for not knowing the details of the Bengals stadium naming deal with Paycor. According to the lease the team signed for use of the publicly owned stadium, the county gets get a cut of anything roughly over $60 million dollars. Now we know the deal came in below that threshold, not because the county provided the information, but because an auditor hired by the Bengals delivered the bad news that the county’s cut will be zero.
We still don’t know what Paycor paid to have its name on the stadium. If that doesn’t sit well with you, don’t direct you anger at the Bengals. Hamilton County commissioners need to press the team for that information on behalf of their constituents. The taxpayers of Hamilton County own the stadium, after all. They deserve to know how their investment is paying off.
Enquirer Executive Editor Beryl Love writes a biweekly column that takes you behind the scenes at The Enquirer. Occasionally, he shares his thoughts on local issues, particularly as they pertain to a free press and government transparency. Email him at blove@enquirer.com. He can’t respond personally to every email, but he reads them all.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Enquirer editor Beryl Love We're unapologetic skeptics election season
