If you could ask Hillary Clinton one thing, what would it be?
It’s one question a diverse group of 18 local residents pondered Thursday night when they gathered in downtown Akron to watch Clinton’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention and discuss their opinions on the presidential election, the candidates and media coverage.
The group was invited as a part of Your Vote Ohio, a project involving more than 20 media companies across the state trying to reflect the thoughts of Ohioans in campaign coverage by conducting polling and holding discussions. Their names will be withheld until the publication of a cumulative article examining this group’s discussion compared with last week’s group that watched the Republican National Convention.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan Jefferson Center from St. Paul, Minn., facilitated the discussion.
When asked, many said they would ask Clinton about policy issues they feel she still hasn’t made clear, such as her stance on homeland security, veterans’ benefits and health care.
However, the conversation often gravitated then toward character. One man asked: “What makes you more trustworthy than a man who has unnaturally orange skin?”
Character became a theme: Participants could prioritize issues important to themselves in this election, and many agreed that in this election in particular they are judging candidates on how much they trust each one to act responsibly as well as their positions on the issues.
Some focused especially on integrity, noting that candidates may announce their policies, “but if [they] don’t have integrity, none of that matters.”
Many wanted to see Clinton address her “shortcomings” to explain her involvement in events that have dogged her candidacy, and also show more emotion than past speeches.
Clinton’s integrity, however, was not the only one at question Thursday.
Include media.
The group gained political information from a variety of sources — from newspapers and radio to TV and social media — but many agreed that they didn’t feel they were receiving accurate information.
“With political stuff in particular, there’s always two sides of the coin,” said one man.
“I realize that what networks are putting on TV is not half the story,” said another.
Some viewed social media as the main culprit of misinformation, noting the stories they see on Facebook and Twitter largely depend on who they follow and what they’ve read in the past.
And many think there are far too many sources available to know which one is accurate.
“That’s why I get frustrated with getting everyone’s opinion at me at the same time,” said one woman. “It’s too hard to sift through it all.”
On the other hand, others said bias exists in reporting, no matter the publication. Some in the group trusted certain writers and reporters over others.
Other people said they follow certain journalists because their opinions align.
The discussion of bias in journalism prompted a larger discussion of bias in the natural world.
Reporting on politics would be difficult to accomplish without bias, some agreed, because bias is pervasive. At a societal level, the question was raised: How would Donald Trump’s quotes sound if they came from a black man, or if Clinton’s quotes came from a man?
Theresa Cottom can be emailed at tcottom@thebeaconjournal.com.