Opinion | The People’s Paper MS
Never miss a Simpson County update. Tap Follow at the top of our page.
When a candidate asks for your vote, that candidate is asking for your trust.
They want the authority to make decisions that affect your family, your community and your future. Before you give them that authority, shouldn’t you have a chance to learn what they believe, what they intend to do and how they will represent you?
A campaign sign tells you a name. An advertisement tells you what a candidate wants you to hear. Answering questions gives voters something more: an opportunity to examine the promises.
That is why it matters when a candidate seeks public office but does not answer reasonable questions from the people they hope to represent or from a community newspaper, radio station, television station or podcast asking on those people’s behalf.
Will they be secretive in office? Will they withhold information from the very people who elected them? Will they stop listening once they no longer need our votes?
We cannot honestly answer those questions based on an unanswered questionnaire alone. Silence during a campaign does not prove that someone will govern dishonestly, conceal public business or neglect constituents.
But it does leave voters with less information and gives us a legitimate reason to ask how seriously that candidate takes the responsibility to communicate.
Openness is not just a campaign slogan
Mississippi’s own laws recognize the importance of public access to government.
The state’s Open Meetings Act declares that “the formation and determination of public policy is public business” and should take place in open meetings, except as the law otherwise provides. The principle connects openness to the public’s ability to understand government deliberations and decisions.
The Mississippi Public Records Act likewise establishes a policy of public access to government records, subject to applicable exceptions. The Mississippi Ethics Commission administers the law and provides a process for handling complaints.
These laws concern public bodies, meetings and records. They do not require political candidates to complete a newspaper questionnaire. But they express a principle that should matter before Election Day, too: The public deserves access to information about the people and institutions exercising public power.
We should expect candidates to explain how they intend to honor that principle, not merely put the word “transparency” on campaign material.
Voters already worry that nobody is listening
This concern is not imaginary.
In a July 2023 national survey, Pew Research Center found that 85% of U.S. adults said most elected officials did not care what people like them thought. Only 14% said elected officials did care.
That finding measures public perception, not the behavior of any particular candidate or officeholder. Nevertheless, it illustrates the depth of public frustration.
A candidate has an opportunity to challenge that distrust by answering questions, explaining disagreements and demonstrating a willingness to listen.
Declining to engage does little to help voters determine whether that candidate will be different.
Fairness goes both ways
Candidates deserve fair treatment.
An unanswered email might reflect a missed message, a scheduling problem or a campaign’s limited resources. A candidate may object to the wording of a question or prefer an interview to a written response. Those possibilities deserve consideration.
There is a difference between not receiving an answer and receiving an explicit refusal. A responsible news outlet should describe what actually happened, not assume a motive.
The standard we propose is straightforward: Ask fair questions. Give candidates a reasonable opportunity to respond. Make room for an explanation. Apply the same standard regardless of party, popularity or incumbency.
Then tell readers who answered, who declined and who had not responded by the stated deadline.
That approach reflects journalism’s public-service responsibility. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics calls on journalists to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government and to seek openness in public business and public records.
A community news outlet’s questions should serve the reader, not flatter a candidate or manufacture a confrontation.
Answers are part of earning trust
A candidate does not have to agree with a news outlet. A candidate does not have to give the answer people or outlets prefer.
“I disagree with the premise” is an answer.
“I do not know yet, but here is how I would find out” is an answer.
“I cannot promise that, and here is why” is an answer.
Voters can evaluate an honest disagreement. They can weigh an explanation. They can decide whether a proposal makes sense.
What they cannot do is meaningfully evaluate an answer they never receive.
Responding to questions does not guarantee good leadership. A polished response can still be vague, misleading or unrealistic. Voters should examine a candidate’s record and the substance of their promises, not just whether they returned a questionnaire.
Still, a willingness to engage is a reasonable consideration when deciding whom to trust.
If you want to represent us, we should be able to ask what that representation will look like. If you want authority over public decisions, we should be able to ask how you will explain those decisions. If you want our trust, we should be able to ask how you intend to earn it.
Our vote is not something a candidate is owed. It is a responsibility we exercise.
And asking questions before we cast it is not disrespectful.
It is part of the job of being a voter.
