As part of our coverage of the 2006 race for mayor, we decided early on that we would run extended question-and-answer sessions with Mayor Teresa Isaac and challenger Jim Newberry. What better way, we thought, for voters to hear straight from the candidates about the key issues in the race?
After Herald-Leader staff writers Michelle Ku and Sarah Vos conducted the interviews, however, we were left with a fairness issue to weigh. Both candidates were questioned with the same basic list of key issues — growth, sewers, water, taxes, the police, the airport. But their answers to similar questions were by no means equal.
As has become her trademark in office, Isaac generally stuck to short answers: yes, no, a phrase or two. Sarah Vos asked several follow-up questions to draw out more detailed responses, but those generally led to short answers as well. In all, the interview took 12 minutes. On the flip side, Newberry, as is becoming his trademark, offered lengthy answers in paragraph form. His responses to Michelle Ku were more nuanced, often in line with the lengthy platform issue papers he released in the spring, and sometimes repetitious. That interview took 53 minutes.
Which left us with a question about how we should present these interviews in the paper. We had not given the candidates a time limit, and we had told their campaigns that the answers would run in a verbatim, Q-and-A format. Because of the candidates’ contrasting styles, Newberry’s interview would obviously take up more space when transcribed in the newspaper (more than double the space, in fact). If we ran his interview in full, would some readers see that as unequal treatment? But if we edited his answers down to match the mayor’s, was that fair? From a practical perspective, would it even be possible to determine what he was talking about if we did that?
After much discussion among newsroom editors, we decided to add a little space to the Monday newspaper so we could run both interviews with minimal editing. Yes, this means that Newberry’s interview takes up more space. More importantly, though, it means that readers and voters get to see both candidates in full, and to judge for themselves. We also decided to post audio of the interviews, for those who want to hear for themselves. In many ways, the interviews are as interesting for what they show about the candidates’ styles as for what the candidates actually have to say.
- Peter Baniak, metro editor
Recent Comments