As has so often been the case with Virginian-Pilot coverage of Portsmouth politics, the main event has once again been supplanted by the sideshow. An article in the November 1, 2018, issue of the paper accuses Candidate Paul Battle of falsely claiming that Senator Tim Kaine endorsed him. According to the story, Mr. Battle’s advertisement in the Bridges section of the V-P a week ago listed Senator Kaine as a supporter, but the senator’s staffers deny the assertion. The issue is, what in the political realm  constitutes endorsement?I have a Kaine for Senate yard sign on my lawn. I supported him when he ran for Lt. Governor, Governor, Senator, and Vice President. The sign in the photo is a testament to my support for him in his current run. If I were an important enough political figure that he wanted to advertise that I stand with him, would he be guilty of misleading advertising if he ran my photo in his campaign literature and listed me as a supporter? Reasonable people would acknowledge that I have made my position on his candidacy known in an unambiguous manner by publicly displaying his campaign emblem on my front lawn.

What, then, is the message from this photo? At a reception for Senator Kaine last month, he was gracious enough to grant “photo ops” to anyone present. Those of us running for office in November he addressed as “ticket mates” without asking us to show our Democratic Party membership cards — fortunately for me, because I’m an independent. He did not reserve that label for me alone; I heard him repeat the term to others similarly situated. Additionally, I can attest that Candidate Battle and his wife have a comparable photo with the two of them flanking the Senator. Mr. Battle’s candidate name tag, like mine is plainly visible in the photo and to anyone who was nearby. The Senator has been around this block enough times to know that each of us stands to benefit or suffer from the association, depending on the beholder.

If this type of visual evidence is not sufficient for the mainstream media, they have other options. When I ran for office previously, the V-P required signed affirmations from the parties named in candidate advertisements that they had given consent for such use. They appear to have modified their practices, so their apparent unhappiness with the result is in large part their own fault but something they can remedy going forward.

We as readers, though, have our own cause for displeasure. Instead of devoting precious column inches to reporting on candidate positions on Portsmouth issues, the Pilot has focused on drama and spectacle. Rather than examining the twenty-year track record of the remaining incumbent candidate in the race and ground-truthing his mythological accounts of how he has promoted the public interest, they have obsessed over every twist and turn in the aftermath of the Whitaker trial. The government affairs reporter for Portsmouth has been present for at least two candidate forums, but not a word has appeared in print or online about the issues discussed. We deserve better reporting on substantive matters affecting our city. That we are not receiving it may explain in part why subscription rates are declining.