-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3289/qa-with-the-denver-posts-dan-haley/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
- Report of ‘secret’ immigration detention centers raises rights concerns
- Stimulus funds aimed at rural areas dumped into metro regions
- Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
- The pro-government anti-capitalist anti-American worldwide science hoax
Also, was this also the first time that the Post decided to endorse during the primary? Will that make it awkward come general election time if your primary picks don't win?
Given that the Post has made its primary election presidential endorsements, if Sens. McCain and Clinton win their respective parties' nominations, has the Post already determined who it would endorse in the general election?
If so, why not make that choice clear at this time as well? What could change between now and November to alter that choice?
We've got some questions that we're left earlier for you upthread.
I'll try to answer both of your questions at the same time. First, let's start with why we endorsed in a primary. The decision to do so wasn't always a slam-dunk. I went back and forth, largely because of the issue Bill raised. If one of our endorsed candidates makes it to the general election, and the other doesn't, does that mean we'd have to endorse the one who made it? I don't think so. We thought Hillary was the best among the Democrats at this moment in time, when Coloradans were heading to caucuses. That shouldn't preclude us from saying, for example, that McCain is the better of the two candidates when they go face to face in November. However, this is precisely why many newspapers, including The Post, don't endorse this early. But more and more newspapers seem to be endorsing this cycle, and I think it's because so many states are so critical to the process. Here's a link to an editor's note I wrote explaining in more detail why we endorsed: http://www.denverpos...
Also, as to Bill's point, a lot can happen over the next 10 months in the campaign to change our minds. You learn a lot about how a candidate may act as president by how they act under pressure on the campaign trail.
Is it a laborious process akin to the crafting of the Magna Carta or do you throw lawn darts at their direct mailers?
And, many thanks for joining us, Dan.
Why did the Post decide to scoop its print edition with endorsements online? This was a first - can you explain the rationale?
Also, was this also the first time that the Post decided to endorse during the primary? Will that make it awkward come general election time if your primary picks don't win?
We rec'd a few comments from people who thought we must have missed the huge Obama rally last week. We saw it. But our selections aren't based on momentum, or who we think is going to win Colorado, or elsewhere.
I think I answered most of your questions in a previous post. We believe this was the first time the Post endorsed in a presidential primary. Our researchers checked back issues going back decades. We have endorsed in other state or local primaries in the past, but even that is rare.
Do you worry that so much polictical coverage early in the process will burn out readers? Do you think they will get tired of reading about the election and just tune out (or stop reading)? I imagine Coloradans are at a higher risk with the convention. What are your thoughts? Do you every consider limiting political coverage or seeking out other stories?
And, given that you, as editorial page editor, have publicly weighed in with your picks on behalf of your employer, are you planning to caucus, personally?
The Gazette recently implemented a new policy since things were getting pretty out of hand with anonymous commenters.
Often, online stories are merely re-prints of published stores (or will appear in the print edition as is) which don't lend themselves especially well to a Web audience.
Was there any consideration of using a different tone in the online endorsement than what would appear in Sunday's paper?
It's a tough call. To me, a caucus is different than voting in a primary, and even though I'm paid to have an opinion, I don't feel comfortable participating in an open process like that. That's just how I feel. Some journalists don't even vote, to avoid some appearance of conflict. I have never gone that far, and believe strongly in my right, and duty, as an American to vote in elections.
That said, as a young politico, I attended a caucus when I was 18 years old, and was bored to tears. Couldn't believe democracy was that boring. Hopefully tomorrow night will be a different experience for the thousands of new caucus-goers.
We didn't talk about whether the online endorsements should carry a different tone, but it's certainly an interesting question. Like most newspapers, we're still feeling our way around this "new" technology.