Used with permission by the author. This is copyrighted material and cannot be reprinted or republished without the author's permission. Originally published in Scene in SA monthly magazine, Vol. 5, No. 10, June 2004, pp. 22-26. Copies of the magazine can be purchased at any San Antonio Borders Bookstores or by calling 210-828-4209. For comments, contact editor@scenepublications.com or cmassey2@satx.rr.com.

In the inner sanctum of the Express-News boardroom, candidates for local and state offices assemble to be interrogated on their political platforms. After these interviews, board members discuss the candidates and decide whom to endorse.

In the 2002 state legislature elections, Ken Mercer, a Republican, ran for Representative, District 117, which encompasses northwest and southwest Bexar County. He won the election by 18% of the vote, a huge margin for a newcomer, without the help of the Express-News editorial board, which couldn't bring itself to endorse a man who was from his party's "extreme conservative wing" (10/18/02).

What makes him "extreme"? He's pro-life and against a state income tax. The board grilled him on his pro-life and income tax positions, obviously not pleased. Then the clincher. As a member of a Spanish-speaking church (he speaks Spanish fluently), he is the liaison to various other church groups. As a church representative, he attended a "Christian Coalition" meeting. That association, coupled with his stances on abortion and the income tax, was apparently enough to label him "extreme" and prevent the board from endorsing him.

They also didn't endorse his opponent, former City Councilman Raul Prado, a Democrat, who was embroiled in a grand jury investigation for alleged campaign finance illegalities. The board called this race "dismal" (10/18/02). "I was astounded when I saw the paper that day," says Mercer. "Between a candidate under indictment and a candidate with Christian values, they couldn't choose."

One of the most important jobs a newspaper editorial board does for the community is interview and endorse candidates. Many voters depend on their local newspaper to cull through the candidates and make recommendations-especially for local races like city council and school boards. Voters do not always heed the "hallowed" advice of their newspaper editorial board. In the case of Express-News recommendations, one press officer for a Republican political candidate says facetiously, "We've come to view endorsements from this board as a kiss of death."

Still, a recommendation by a newspaper can be influential to the outcome of a race. For this reason, it's important to understand the criteria by which an editorial board makes its decisions for political endorsements.

In her book, Future Voice: Editorial pages: newspapers' overlooked strategic tool, Lynnell Burkett, Express-News editorial page editor, quotes Susan Albright of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, who says of her editorial board, "We look at issues, then apply values and tradition to them."

In the case of the Express-News editorial board we have the values and traditions of Burkett, Bruce Davidson (assoc. editorial page editor), Joe Holley (Insight editor), Gloria Padilla (editorial writer), and Jan Jarboe Russell (columnist). Publisher Larry Walker is also an active participant, according to Burkett, who wrote in a February editorial, "While every opinion that appears in 'Our Turn' is not necessarily unanimously shared by board members, the opinions expressed almost always have majority support.

The values of the Express-News editorial board are best illustrated using their editorials and columns, showing their stances on a variety of social issues and how these viewpoints influence their political coverage and election endorsements.

Clinging with a death grip on a belief in a woman's "right" for an abortion under virtually any circumstances, this board disregards the sentiments of a vast majority of Americans-72 percent according to the most recent Gallup Poll-who favor restrictions, because they view abortion from a moral and ethical perspective, rather than from a 'rights' point of view.

The board spewed venom at Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, in editorials (4/11/03, 5/2/03) blasting his sponsorship of legislation called the "Woman's Right to Know Act" that requires a 24-hour waiting period and the dissemination of a pamphlet that includes pictures of developing fetuses. The newspaper urged its defeat, calling it a "coercive piece of legislation" (5/2/03).

The legislation passed.

Most Americans agree that the civil rights movement of the sixties ushered in some much needed changes in our society, and policies to correct racial discrimination in school admissions was one of them. But are racial preference policies still necessary forty years later?

The board believes that the U.S. Supreme Court "wisely ruled that race can be among the factors considered in admission to the nation's colleges and universities" (6/24/03).

In a scathing indictment of Justice Clarence Thomas who wrote a 31-page dissent of that decision, columnist Russell writes "he despises his own liberation and seeks to deny it to others" and his is a "bigot's point of view" (6/26/03). Thomas wrote in his dissent, "When blacks take positions in the highest places of government, industry or academia, it is an open question today whether their skin color played a part in their advancement. That question itself is the stigma."

According to Tammy Bruce in her book, The New Thought Police, when Ward Connerly, a businessman and a regent of the University of California, led the campaign for Proposition 209 to eliminate racial preferences, he was called a "houseboy," a "paid assassin," and a "freak of nature." Jesse Jackson accused this black man of promoting "ethnic cleansing." Board member Russell aligns herself with people like Jackson who demonize those with dissenting opinions.

Padilla, however, gives the best example of the legacy of racial preference. Sent to do a story on the San Antonio Housing Authority because Hispanic activists "cried racism," she came to the conclusion that their charges proved baseless (7/23/03). In this piece, she provides the percentages of Hispanics (76%), Anglos (11%), Blacks (10%), and Others (3%) in this organization, coming to the conclusion that since there is a majority of Hispanics, racism cannot be proved. Since San Antonio is only 51% Hispanic, wouldn't a more equitable percentage be 51%, rather than 76%-if fair treatment is the goal? Apparently not.

She ends her editorial with this statement, "As someone who has benefited from affirmative action in various newsrooms across the state, I would like to think that while skin color got me in for the interview, my resume and clips got me the job."

That this bright, educated woman has to even mention this is a sign that racial preferences are doing a disservice, not only to her, but also to all Americans.

The board backs gun control, saying, "Most Americans want common sense laws that will limit the killing" (5/13/00). Our country already has many "common sense" gun laws that simply need enforcing; nevertheless, the rhetoric of those lobbying for stricter gun control laws is emotionally appealing. What readers don't see in the editorial page is the strong evidence against gun restrictions.

Consider, for example, what has happened in Great Britain-which has the most stringent firearm restrictions of any democracy-since it banned handguns in 1997. According to Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, "In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent" and "the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent." Malcolm goes on to say that the English approach to violent crime "has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States."

While a majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage, according to recent Gallup Polls, this board is not. On March 8, their position became crystal clear when they defended a Baylor University student newspaper editorial that "opposed discrimination and supported equal rights for gay couples on the basis of equal protection under the law." The board also condemned the private Baptist university for having "rigid, backward rules and views," a hostile attack on the university's biblically based curriculum. The hypocrisy of the board's call for Baylor "to be more tolerant of divergent viewpoints" could not be lost on even the casual reader.

The board is also against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman (3/14/04). Every staff-written column in the Express-News on this issue has been in favor of homosexual marriage. What is noticeably absent in this "debate" is an honest characterization of marriage. According to Don Browning, emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences at the University of Chicago, and Elizabeth Marquardt, affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values, "Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of marriage law. It no longer will serve, in concert with other aspects of society, to direct sexual and parental behavior to achieve a complex synthesis of goods. It will function instead to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual partners (New York Times op-ed, 3/9/04).

When Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore refused to remove a Ten Commandments shrine from the state supreme court rotunda, the board was swift in its condemnation: "The chief justice is making a mockery of everything he has pledged to uphold by flouting the law" (8/23/03). The board could not muster the same outrage in a condemning editorial when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began allowing the issuance of marriage certificates to same-sex couples in defiance of California law. The best this board could do was to bury these lines in their March 14 editorial against the proposed marriage amendment: "But just as we opposed former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore's defiance of the law regarding a display of the Ten Commandments, we oppose the effort by some mayors and some judges to flout the law. When judges disregard that system, it leads to a state of legal anarchy."

"Grandparents deserve help from government" (3/13/04). How could anyone be against this federal assistance program proposed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, and endorsed by this editorial board? To even question helping poor Grandma and Grandpa, stuck caring for their grandchildren-even those with working parents-why, the person questioning that would be considered mean-spirited and selfish. Who wants to risk that?

This editorial board understands the power of emotional appeals when it concerns procuring money for social programs. Their editorials and columns for state and federal spending are all about tugging at readers' heartstrings. What they are not about is hard facts or fiscal restraint.

Burkett says the board is "fiscally conservative and very concerned about budget deficits." In fact, this board believes the best way to repair our "Texas' school finance system and outdated tax structure" is a state income tax, coupled with the lowering of property taxes (12/5/03). The board urges state lawmakers who pledged to their constituents that they'd not raise taxes to "Forget no-tax pledge; remember the children" (4/21/04). On the same day in another editorial, they praise Dallas lawyer Michael Boone for supporting a business activity tax.

The board's knee-jerk support for raising taxes is not surprising considering they rely primarily on the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) based in Austin for recommendations on state and federal funding issues (12/5/03, 11/17/03, 11/14/03, 4/29/03, 4/3/03). The Nation, an ultra-liberal magazine, calls the CPPP a "new breed of state think tank." The "nonpartisan" CPPP calls itself a "progressive, people-first" policy organization. This think tank endorses a state income tax.

For a different perspective, Rep. Mercer says, "A state income tax would create a new bureaucratic nightmare costing hundreds of millions of dollars just to administer a new state IRS agency. A state income tax brings huge new costs to government and the burden for collecting and reporting will fall on Texas businesses who will then pass them on to the taxpayer."

Pessimism is the prevailing tone of board editorials and columns related to the war in Iraq. Dire predictions and warnings are the rule. Referring to the one-year anniversary of the war: "One year after Operation Iraqi Freedom began, the outcome of the American-led effort remains uncertain" (3/19/04). Referring to the March 11 Madrid train bombings: "The Europeans also believe that the Iraq war is not only a dangerous distraction from efforts to combat terrorism but actually is feeding the terrorist threat (4/6/04). Referring to the four murdered American security guards: "They remind us, painfully, that the Iraq imbroglio is deeply serious....Nor can this nation walk away, even as the news gets worse" (4/8/04). Board member Holley, in a March 21 column "Spanish voters lift nation's 'fog of war'," equates the war in Iraq with our country's involvement in Vietnam.

The pessimistic message and tone in these writings demoralize our armed forces, their families, and the Americans who support them, and encourage terrorists in their "jihad" against us. Since as the board concedes we cannot "walk away," why doesn't it, instead, offer hope and inspiration to those who are putting their lives on the line in the name of freedom and democracy? The short answer? The impending election.

Though the board may be compelled by their more conservative publisher to endorse George Bush in the November presidential election, their admiration for Democratic Senator John Kerry is apparent. In a March 4 editorial, the board refers to Kerry in glowing terms as a candidate with "toughness and agility" and "perceived electability." But even the board cannot compete with fellow member Davidson whose columns read like propaganda for the Democratic Party. "Seldom has the Democratic Party been so unified and energized," he gloats. "The powerful anti-Bush sentiment means the tables may be turned in Bexar County..." (3/7/04).

Board member Russell's blind devotion to State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, D-Dist. 26, despite her unsubstantiated accusations against Republican senators over a supposed "racial slur," was over-the-top partisanship (11/16/03). In this column, Russell also took the opportunity to denigrate Republicans as "Bubbas," implying they are racist and loutish.

Sherry Sylvester, an award-winning journalist who covered the political beat for the Express-News from 1999 until 2003, and who now administers Texas Media Watch, a non-partisan project that monitors the Texas Press for bias, says of the editorial board, "I believe their views are clouded because of their slant, and when your views are clouded you don't frame issues properly, and I think that's detrimental to the community. They're predispositioned by their left-of-center point of view."

No conservative ideologue, Sylvester was a speechwriter for U.S. Senate candidate Geraldine Ferraro and served in the administration of New York City Mayor David Dinkins. Nevertheless, Express-News Publisher Larry Walker dismisses Sylvester's media bias project saying that a conservative organization funds her work.

Walker may be the only publisher in Texas scoffing at Sylvester's claim of media bias. The Dallas Morning News editorial board, in an April 19 column, writes, "It's time we in the Fourth Estate admit that liberal media bias isn't a figment of Rush Limbaugh's imagination." A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article (4-4-04), responding to an op-ed piece by Sylvester, also admits bias in labeling conservatives far more often than liberals, "We fail the objectivity test and forfeit credibility."

Bob Richter, press officer for Speaker of the Texas House Tom Craddick, R-Midland, worked at the Express-News for 25 years, retiring in January 2003. For thirteen years he was on the editorial board. He believes the board does a service to the community, particularly for the smaller races, like county court-at-law. Reluctant to be too hard on his former colleagues whom he respects, he says, "Journalists go into the business because they want to change the world. But sometimes change isn't necessarily good."

He pauses. "Now that I'm on the other side, I can see that news coverage is not really balanced. It seems that Republicans are always in a defensive position because the media tends to go after them." He pauses again. "On the other hand, Republicans don't do a good job of cultivating the media."

Rep. Mercer says he has done everything possible to cultivate a "relationship" with the Express-News with little luck. His press officer sends media releases and makes follow-up phone calls when Mercer does something significant, such as sponsoring "landmark housing" and "voter fraud reform" legislation, and winning the San Antonio Police Association Legislator of the Year Award, none of which made it into print. Considering all the editorial space devoted to board "darling" Van de Putte on "unsubstantiated" remarks, these omissions are glaring, even unconscionable.

Lynnell Burkett asks in a November San Antonio Express-News editorial, "Why are they so angry?" referring to the multitude of less-than-flattering e-mails she and her editorial staff receive from irate readers. "So how did we as a nation move from genial people who value free speech and diverse opinions to one where so many narrow-minded people think the only ideas worth hearing are either their own or those with whom they agree?"

She goes on to answer her questions, citing concerns about the war, terrorists and societal change. In the same editorial she denigrates "hate radio" and television cable commentators who give "a skewed view of the world" and write "extreme and hateful books." "Moderates," she implores, we "must not remain apathetic, letting extremists rule."

The editorial page editor's claim to being moderate would be laughable if she were not in a position of influence. If she and her board would ever venture out of the ivory tower of their liberal minds, they would learn that societal change is not what makes their readers angry, but rather the board's perspective clouded by an outdated philosophy that is demoralizing, destructive, and patently unfair.

Publisher Larry Walker says, "By nature, the media has a social commitment. We try to present a forum that most people don't see. We try to champion a group of people who don't get a fair shake."

What about those who are ideologically to the right of center? What about readers who crave honest debate, rather than condescending platitudes?

Lynnell Burkett asks, "Why are they so angry?"

In the immortal words of Shakespeare, "Let me count the ways."

Cynthia Leal Massey, an award-winning writer, is on the adjunct English faculty at San Antonio College. A former editor at Southwest Research Institute, she also worked as a correspondent for the San Antonio Light newspaper. Contact her at cmassey2@satx.rr.com.