|
Editorials/Columns
Roanoke Times: A combination of poor preparation by Virginia election officials and melodrama from the state Democratic Party threatens to politicize what should be a common goal: clean voter rolls. At the center of the controversy is a new database containing the names of 57,000 individuals who may have duplicate registrations to vote in Virginia and other states. Virginia Democrats are suing Gov. Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, accusing them of using the database to try to keep legitimate voters from participating in this year’s elections. Several registrars have reported errors in the database, and most are struggling to wade through lists of hundreds of voters at a time of the year when they are already overwhelmed with election preparations. While Democratic leaders warn of dark conspiracies, registrars have a strong motivation not to carelessly cancel registrations. The last thing they need is a long queue of unhappy people on Election Day.
Del. Richard Anderson, Inside NOVA: As the eyes of the country focus on November elections in our commonwealth, the eyes of our fellow Virginians are focused on ethics reform in Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia state capitol. And that responsibility for reform rests squarely on the shoulders of the General Assembly. Having spent 30 years in the uniform of the greatest Air Force the world has ever known, and living under the exacting ethical standards imposed on military members, I am concerned about ethical guidelines for those who serve in public office. Now is the time to do the right thing.
Daily Progress: The Albemarle County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office must make better progress toward meeting fundamental standards. Repeatedly failing to do so is alarming and unacceptable. And that’s what we said last year (“Clerk’s office in need of a serious look,” The Daily Progress, Sept. 23, 2012). For the fourth consecutive year, the state auditor’s office reported errors that might have realized money for the county or commonwealth. It’s not uncommon for audits to find problems; no office can be managed perfectly. But a pattern of errors, year in and year out, is troubling.
Ginger Stanley, Times-Dispatch: Citizens expect their newspaper to report human interest stories, spotlight worthwhile causes and show every phase of life from cradle to grave in the printed pages. We celebrate a child’s first art project award, highlight the high school football team’s win and the loss of a loved one — all on our pages. Strong and growing communities rely on their local newspaper to hold public officials accountable because that is our role and it makes “home” a better place to live. We advocate more openness in government on our opinion pages and praise elected officials when they do the right thing. Government accountability is vital to a strong community and is what we strive to protect — the citizens’ right to know what their public officials are doing or planning to do that will affect how we go about our everyday living. We report on crime at every level with our readers’ safety as the prime motivation. We place this role, partnering with law enforcement to highlight dangers in the reader’s area, on high priority.
Peter Funt, News Virginian: The biggest threat to newspapers today might be newspapers themselves — or, to be more precise, the companies that own them. This week Gannett’s USA Today doubled its cover price from one dollar to two. Can you think of any other struggling business that would raise prices 100 percent? Many publishers have concluded, perhaps correctly, that ink-on-paper editions will not survive too far into the future. What is reckless — for papers and their readers — is that management is taking misguided steps to try and speed the process.
Josh Gerstein, Politico: A federal judge has rejected, for now, much of a bid by two drug companies tokeep under wraps reports they submit to the federal government detailing episodes where employees may have violated federal laws or regulations. Pfizer, Purdue Pharmaceuticals and HHS all argued to keep secret the companies' submissions under so-called corporate integrity agreements, where firms settle criminal and/or civil charges by agreeing to rigorous federal oversight. The oversight includes mandatory reporting on all allegations the company learns of regarding improper activities involving drug sales, marketing, pricing and the like.
Leonard Downie, Washington Post: In the Watergate era, the Nixon administration’s telephone wiretaps were the biggest concern for journalists and sources worried about government surveillance. That was one of the reasons why Bob Woodward met with FBI official Mark Felt (a.k.a. “Deep Throat”) in an underground parking garage in Arlington, and why he and Carl Bernstein did much of their reporting by knocking on the front doors of their sources’ homes. Except for the aborted prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for the leak of the Pentagon Papers, criminal culpability or pervasive surveillance were not major concerns, especially after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974. Not so now. With the passage of the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a vast expansion of intelligence agencies and their powers, the aggressive exploitation of intrusive digital surveillance capabilities, the excessive classification of public documents and officials’ sophisticated control of the news media’s access to the workings of government, journalists who cover national security are facing vast and unprecedented challenges in their efforts to hold the government accountable to its citizens. They find that government officials are increasingly fearful of talking to them, and they worry that their communications with sources can be monitored at any time.
Ken Paulson, First Amendment Center: A University of Kansas journalism professor has blown up his own career with a tweet following the shootings at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. His tweet: “blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters.” The tweet was insensitive, disturbing and dumb, and elicited exactly the kind of reaction you would expect. Kansas legislators are calling for Associate Professor David W. Guth to lose his job. Kansas Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce told the Associated Press, “Wishing death and damnation upon parents and their children is reprehensible and not befitting an employee of such a distinguished university.” Of course, the rush to fire Guth faces one significant obstacle. It is precisely the kind of free speech that the First Amendment is intended to protect. |