Virginia Papers Have Mixed Reaction to Sen. Allen's 'N-Word' Problem

By: Joe Strupp The current uproar over Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) alleged racist comments, including several stories accusing him of using the N-word and engaging in other anti-black statements years ago, has drawn mixed reaction from his home state newspapers as they cover his re-election campaign.

While some papers, such as the Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, are stepping up coverage of the issue as the accusations spread, others, like The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, are purposely downplaying the story out of concern for other issues in the tight Senate race with Jim Webb, a Demcorat. All of those local journalists who spoke with E&P, however, deny missing the story in the past, claiming any indication that Allen may have made such comments were nothing more than rumors.

"There were rumors that never rose to a news story," said Warren Fiske, a Virginian-Pilot political reporter and 20-year veteran of state coverage. "In the past, we dealt with what we knew and could prove. We wrote stories about the Confederate flag in his house, his opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday and black legislators' concerns of his sensitivity. But I don't recall a teammate ever coming out and putting a name behind it."

That reference was to some of Allen's former University of Virginia teammates and classmates who have recently accused him of using the N-word in college, one of several stories in recent days tying him to previous racist comments. Allen has denied making such statements, but the coverage continues to dog him. One former teammate even claims that he was with Allen in the 1970s when he allegedly stuffed a severed animal head in the mailbox of a black family.

The Virginian-Pilot, which has had just two full-time staffers on the Senate campaign -- each following one of the candidates -- deployed three more people on to aspects of the Allen story Tuesday, said Jane Elizabeth, the paper's senior editor. "The story was a basic campaign story until 8 o'clock last night," she said, citing the claim on MSNBC by nationally known Virginia politics professor (and former Allen classmate) Larry Sabato that Allen was wrong in saying he'd never used the N-word. "We changed our minds."

Gordon Hickey, political editor of The Richmond Times-Dispatch and a 21-year veteran of the paper, said no past accusations had ever reached the level of proof needed to report on. "There have been rumors about his activities but we don't write about rumors," he said. "I think more people are coming forward because he is running for president, you get more coverage."

Hickey said the paper's five-person political coverage team remains unchanged in its deployment, but noted that any increased coverage of the story is justified. "It is getting the attention it deserves because he is running for the Senate, and has not disavowed running for president," the editor said.

But for Ed Jones, editor of the Free Lance-Star who has been at the paper for 33 years, a careful approach is preferred. He said today's revelations about Sabato and the former Virginia teammates' accusations ran in his paper on the bottom of a section front, and came through an Associated Press story. He also said his lone statehouse reporter had not written about it and may not.

"That kind of story needs to be kept in perspective," he said. "I do have a concern that the focus on these issues of what people said decades ago threaten to overwhelm the campaign coverage. There are plenty of other issues that are very important that seem to be getting short shrift."

This all follows a controversy that emerged during the summer over Allen calling one of his opponent's campaign workers a "macaca" -- and then, more recently, the senator's belated disclosure that he is part-Jewish. In an odd twist, Bob Gibson of The Daily Progress in Charlottesville, wrote on Sunday that, three years ago, Allen's staff demanded -- and got -- a correction/denial in the paper after Gibson revealed Allen's Jewish ancestry.

Ethics experts, meanwhile, offered caution for those on the story, pointing out that most of the accusations revolve around people making claims without any other proof beyond their word. "There has to be substantial proof of where, when and how things were said," notes Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Chair for Ethics at The Poynter Institute. "You have to hold these to a high degree because these are serious allegations.

Gary Hill, chair of the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists, echoed that view, noting that readers need to know as much about the accuser as possible. "You have to ask where it happened, what were the circumstances and anything you can before you publish," he said. "Share as much of that information as you can." But he pointed out, the accusations need to be reported if proven. "Language is important," he said. "The way people refer to other people is a valid area of inquiry."

Orville Schell, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, took a more restrained view. He said reporting on comments is necessary, but requires serious fact-checking. "There is a snowball effect and it is easy to get the snowball rolling," he said. "One would hate to see him done in and then later on it gets revealed they were charges that were less-than-verifiable."