by Dennis Dalman
These days, there seems to be a conspiracy theory under every rock.
All through September I wrote profile stories of candidates running for office – their views on issues, their reactions to topics, their backgrounds, their experiences, their personal achievements. I wrote the profiles for the Sartell-St. Stephen Newsleader and for the St. Joseph Newsleader.
Every one of those nearly two dozen stories was based completely on the candidates’ own words and statements without any bias on my part.
Then up popped conspiracy theories. Some readers have accused me of slanting one of those stories. One of them emailed me to claim I must have been paid by three of the candidates or their supporters to write such a long “favorable” story about them.
Other than my salary for doing my job during 40 years as a reporter, I have never once been offered money to write a story nor would I ever agree to make such a “deal.”
The email writer was referring to a “trio” of Sartell-St. Stephen school-board candidates. The profiles of those three were published in the Newsleader Sept. 30 with a headline that states, “Trio of school board candidates: more parental involvement.” In that same edition was a front-page headline stating “Nine in race for school board seats,” followed by five profile stories of the candidates on the inside pages. One of the nine candidates has not had her story in the newspaper yet because she missed the deadline for submitting her response. I allowed her an extended deadline, and her story is now written. (I’d sent questionnaires to all candidates in early September.)
Of the nine competing school-board candidates for two seats on the school board, three of them (Emily Larson, Jen Smith, Scott Wenshau) are running as a “trio,” and all three hold views that are similar if not identical. They share a campaign website on which they give their viewpoints. Larson and Smith founded a group called “Kids Over Politics,” whose members claim Sartell schools have become politicized.
Here is what happened:
Two of the three candidates returned the questionnaire responses by the deadline. I also used some of their extensive statements from the website they share, and I did so with scrupulous objectivity, using their direct quotes and paraphrases.
I decided to put the three profiles under one headline because they are conducting a “trio” campaign with like-minded viewpoints.
The upset email reader, hinting strongly I was biased in favor of the “trio” candidates, asked why they were given such a long story in the paper.
Was the story longer than the other profile stories? Yes, of course it was longer. That is because that one story included all three candidate profiles whereas the others stood alone. And, in fact, if you measure the amount of space for each “trio” candidate, it’s just about the same space as for the others.
The email writer obviously thinks I favor the “trio” over and above the other candidates. Wrong again. I do not agree with them. I do not believe “politics” has corrupted the learning process in Sartell schools. I do not believe that critical race theory, Marxism, socialism and anti-Americanism have crept into classrooms. I do not believe parents’ concerns are being squelched. I don’t agree, but as Americans, as candidates, those three individuals have every right to espouse their viewpoints.
I would suggest to that angry emailer that instead of accusing the newspaper of biased “paid-off” coverage, a better course of action might be to campaign for her favorite candidates and urge people to vote for them.