Candidates Unfiltered—An Evolution?

Interesting points made by Andy Martin, a candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois. He writes an open letter to new Tribune Co. owner Sam Zell. He compares and contrasts his experience with the media as a candidate running for public office. Broadcast media comes out ahead for several reasons, some valid and some maybe not.

Where he is right is in reading the public’s desire for “unfiltered access” to candidates. He complained he was given short shrift by the print media and was grateful for a broadcast station’s generous offer to produce a free five-minute statement to be posted on the Web site alongside other candidates’ video statements. He said this set-up allowed voters to “get a sense of who the candidates are.”

There is nothing wrong with this, provided the media (in whatever form) also provides a “sense of who the candidates are” by exploring their backgrounds, calling them out on their positions, tapping their knowledge or lack thereof, and providing all-important context and perspective.

Does a newspaper have enough resources to cover in depth every candidate, even fringe ones. Probably not. But should it be their duty? Probably so, I say. Let candidates have their say—provide access without filters—but complement the unfiltered coverage with analysis, with perspective, with public debate (what voters really think), with TRUTH (like the St. Petersburg Times’ daily Truth-o-Meter ruling)

If a newspapers can’t provide this, then they should look at their priorities. Can resources and newshole be allocated differently? Or are other things more important than the election of public officials (in many cases, there just might be other things more important)? The key is examining the situation and not resorting to status quo.