Columnist Sandra Thompson: Is it possible to have too much election news?

Sandra Thompson

Saturday, May 2, 1998 | 4:55 a.m.

SANDRA THOMPSON is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas SUN. She can be reached at 259-4025 or on the Internet at thompson@lasvegassun.com

MONDAY officially will signal the start of "the silly season."

That's when candidates begin filing for public office. But the season won't end with the May 18 deadline. It will only get sillier -- and in some cases uglier -- up to the November elections.

The opening of the filing period also reignites the debate on the media's role in political campaigns and how much influence they have on elections.

* Who really decides the front-runners in political races featuring a herd of candidates -- the voters or the media?

* Are newspapers obligated to cover every candidate in the race -- even when there are 23 -- so voters can make an informed choice?

* Is it the media's responsibility to distinguish for voters between the "viable" candidates and the "loons"?

* How much coverage should be given to "fringe" candidates?

* And who determines which candidate falls into the "fringe" or "loon" category?

Critics contend the media choose which candidates to support and then push their campaigns through selective news coverage. The reality is that neither television news stations nor newspapers have adequate staffs to cover every race and every candidate.

So where do we draw the line?

Howard Stutz of R&R Advertising, who handles political campaigns, believes the media should step forward and determine which candidate is viable. That judgment is made through polling and personal observations of reporters and editors, he says.

Stutz says that because anyone can run for office for a small filing fee, a candidate is not automatically viable. Some people, he says, just run to see their name in print or on a ballot.

Stutz handled Sheriff Jerry Keller's campaign in 1994 and is involved in his re-election bid. There were 23 candidates for the position, but he says the media, to some extent, and the public (through polling) decided there were only six viable candidates. So the news coverage was focused on the six.

Stutz says his beef with the media is that some races aren't covered at all, while some are overcovered.

Do the media have an obligation to the voters to point out candidates who are disconnected to reality?

Each year the Las Vegas SUN interviews every candidate in the general election. It's a tremendously time-consuming ordeal, but well worth it. We are fortunate to get a chance to quiz candidates on a variety of issues. The vast majority of voters don't have that opportunity.

Most of the candidates are well-intentioned people who have specific ideas on how to improve the community and state. Every so often, though, there's a candidate who has no grasp of reality. Should newspapers, either in news stories or editorials, point this out to voters. I say yes.

"It's a knotty problem," says Gary Gray, a political campaign consultant who specializes in Democratic and nonpartisan races.

However, he's more concerned about the media's failure to report on candidates who are running solely for personal gain or for other private agendas. "There's not enough light shed on them," he says.

Should reporters spend more time dissecting what candidates say and digging into their pasts? Should the efforts be limited to major races?

Then there's the question about how much the public even cares about election coverage. The average man on the street thinks all politicians are crooks and liars and his vote doesn't mean anything.

Likewise, the media and politicians don't have confidence in the public, and think voters aren't as informed as they should be.

Gray disagrees: "The voting public is smart. It's just that they're not interested."

Are politicians or the media to blame for the lack of interest?

Voters say they're turned off by negative campaigns. Yet there are statistics to show they do result in name recognition and sometimes victory. It's also the down-and-dirty race between two sniping candidates that often gets the most ink or air time.

And that brings me back to my original questions. If the public doesn't seem to care enough about elections, should newspapers cover every candidate in every race? Or should it separate the political wheat from the chaff?

Should we ignore fringe candidates who are independents or belong to some obscure political party? Should we tune out the loons or point them out to voters?

Do candidates with slick campaign managers and hefty advertising budgets get all the media attention?

A full war chest and media blitz don't always guarantee victory. A political educator who knows Nevada politics like the back of his hand says a candidate who has actively participated in the community and who has a recognizable record of accomplishments always will be a viable contender. He may not attract media attention, but the voters will know and will elect him to office.

So what do you think? I'd like to hear from voters. What do you want -- or need -- to know about this year's elections? Send your comments via e-mail (thompson @ lasvegassun.com) or regular mail: Sandra Thompson, Las Vegas SUN, 800 S. Valley View Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89107.