Molly Tumanic

Just prior to Wisconsin’s presidential primary, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and it was this endorsement that would be partially responsible for his strong showing in Wisconsin.

When Edwards came to Davies Center, he proudly announced the Journal Sentinel’s support. Like Edwards’ Des Moines Register endorsement during the Iowa Caucus, it gave his campaign more credibility and, consequently, a larger audience.

This same process will occur this October and November as newspapers across the country weigh in on who would be the best candidate for president of the United States.

The endorsement process also occurs here at UW-Eau Claire, but for a different kind of president – student body president. Each year, the group of candidates for president and vice president present their case to The Spectator editorial board. They, in turn, make their decision (I assume, as I have never served on the board) to let the student body know who they believe is the best candidate.

For a number of different reasons, I feel The Spectator should stay out of the business of endorsing candidates for Student Senate president and vice president. The question of whether The Spectator has the right to endorse candidates is not really central to this debate. Of course it does. The crux of the argument is whether The Spectator should exercise it.

I also realize nearly all major newspaper editors feel the exact opposite. Of the 193 major-market newspaper editors surveyed, four out of five responded they believe “endorsing candidates is an important responsibility of newspapers.” However, there were some glaring examples of newspapers not endorsing candidates in the 2000 presidential election, such as The Los Angeles Times and the aforementioned Journal Sentinel.

Endorsing candidates can be a lose-lose situation for a newspaper, especially for a publicly owned student newspaper that receives funding from Student Senate. If a newspaper selects the losing candidate, it’s embarrassing and loses credibility. Furthermore, not selecting the winning candidate creates an atmosphere of animosity between the victors and the newspaper. This is particularly unfortunate when The Spectator is the lone source for campus information and news for a large segment of the student body.

One reason I feel so strongly about this issue is that through my work with three different student body presidential campaigns, I have been on the receiving end of a positive, negative and non-endorsement. In March 2002, I ran for student body vice president with presidential candidate Sarah Schuh against fellow Student Senate members Chad McCartney and Sean Gavigan.

The editorial board that semester felt that although they were willing to endorse a candidate, (during the election the previous year, The Spectator decided not to take part in the endorsement process at all), neither of the candidates met the standard required to endorse.

This decision was probably more hurtful than an endorsement of our opponents. Looking back on the year following our victory, I am sure our relationship with The Spectator was damaged because of that choice.

The Student Senate election is not the same as the Homecoming election -although some may disagree. The candidates put all they’ve got behind their campaigns, and often emotions and feelings are hurt along the way. Friendships sometimes end and new alliances are formed.

The Spectator’s endorsement is one aspect of this process that is particularly emotional. Candidates sometimes sit and wait for the new edition of The Spectator to be posted online in the wee hours of the morning to see what the editorial board has decided.

I see no way of separating the board’s decision from the emotions that go with the election process, and can say that it’s to the credit of the Student Senate that past endorsements by The Spectator have not been met with budgetary retribution.

Through the endorsement of a candidate, The Spectator is throwing its hat into the ring of the Student Senate election. In turn, the Senate has a hand in The Spectator’s budget. Ethically speaking, it seems an endorsement could lead to a budget in which money is unfairly cut from The Spectator or possibly unfairly added in the form of a “thank you.”

Although I never have seen either of these scenarios occur, members of student government are human just like you and me, believe it or not.

To deny that emotion could play a part in this situation is to put your head in the sand. In an effort to best serve students, I believe that beyond campus news reporting, the Student Senate and The Spectator should have a relationship that is, at best, at arm’s length.

I look to The Spectator to make the first brave move by ending campaign endorsements.