POL: Newspaper Endorsements

[Raiders Army]

On Saturday I noticed that our local newspaper, the El Paso Times endorsed several local, state, and federal candidates. Yesterday they ran a feature on who was running for what seats and their backgrounds. When did it become the status quo for a newspaper to endorse candidates? Isn't it out of the realm of being a "fair and impartial" news source? How can I take their other articles seriously if I know that the paper has a bias towards (and against) certain candidates?

[Young Drachma]

Well, they're done by the editorial board. So it's no different than any other editorial opinion, really. It gives them a chance to weigh in. They're not 'news' stories written by traditional journalists or anything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't ever really remember a time when newspapers didn't endorse candidates. Generally speaking the larger the paper the more common an endorsement but most daily papers have done it throughout my lifetime.

And I'm virtually certain the legacy of the print media endorsing candidates goes back to at least the 1850's if not earlier.

[molson]

It's definitely a outdated relic of the past rather than something new.

I think they still do it to pretend they're still relevant.

[Drake]

Has a newspaper's endorsement...or anybody else's...ever actually influenced your vote?

I can't imagine any circumstance under which I'd ever say, "Oh, well if s/he's good enough for Politician/Newspaper X, s/he's good enough for me!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Drake

Has a newspaper's endorsement...or anybody else's...ever actually influenced your vote?

Only in reverse.

It's pretty standard practice for folks around Atlanta to reconsider a vote for any candidate endorsed by the AJC.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Drake

Has a newspaper's endorsement...or anybody else's...ever actually influenced your vote?

I can't imagine any circumstance under which I'd ever say, "Oh, well if s/he's good enough for Politician/Newspaper X, s/he's good enough for me!"

It makes no sense for a general, mainstream newspaper to influence people through an endorsement. The idea is a throwback to the days when newspapers actually had strong opinions about things, and they were also the main source of information about politics. If you were really into the "Populist Times" in 1865, you'd be pretty influenced by their endorsement.

[Drake]

I wish newspapers would endorse brothels. I'd be influenced by that.

[Toddzilla]

I imagine it's relevant when a paper known to have a ideological bias endorses a candidate from the opposite political party.

For example, if the WaPo were to endorse Mccain (unlikely as it were), it would probably influence some democratic fence-sitters to take the endoresment seriously.

Enough to influence an election? Not a chance.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Drake

Has a newspaper's endorsement...or anybody else's...ever actually influenced your vote?

I can't imagine any circumstance under which I'd ever say, "Oh, well if s/he's good enough for Politician/Newspaper X, s/he's good enough for me!"

Isn't it just like the companies that do indirect advertising? The idea is to just plant the name in your head, not to immediately make you think "Oh, I have to change my vote."

[QuikSand]

There are quite a lot of elected officials who are not holding a particularly politically-charged or partisan office, though the prevalence of this varies by state. I don't have any problem with citizens saying it's unreasonable to do research on the records of judges, the performance of people like clerks of the courts, or the people who have to run for other sundry offices.

For fairly non-controversial elections, I have no problem looking at the local paper to seek their input. If we can take a small break from our autoasphyxiation over bias in the media, we'd recognize that the editorial boards of newspapers at least take the time to meet with candidates, examine their records and positions, and usually can be counted on to point out issues of corruption, negligence, or irresponsibility in office. I don't like my local paper, but by and large I take their word for it when it comes to an essentially apolitical position (like judge for the Orphans Court here...go figure)-- if a candidate were corrupt or incompetent, they'd likely point it out in their endorsements.

[clintl]

Years ago, when I read the San Francisco Chronicle on a regular basis, I remember the Chronicle had a habit of endorsing the incumbent regardless of what party the incumbent belonged to. Of course, the Chronicle also had Art Hoppe as a columnist, which did a lot to make up for that.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

On Saturday I noticed that our local newspaper, the El Paso Times endorsed several local, state, and federal candidates. Yesterday they ran a feature on who was running for what seats and their backgrounds. When did it become the status quo for a newspaper to endorse candidates? Isn't it out of the realm of being a "fair and impartial" news source? How can I take their other articles seriously if I know that the paper has a bias towards (and against) certain candidates?

Do you really read newspapers and think they don't have biases? It's easier on TV with Fox News vs. CNN, but take the Washingotn Post vs. the Washington Times or the NYT vs. the WSJ. IMO, it's much better to have the biases acknowledged and up front rather than trying to guess them.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

There are quite a lot of elected officials who are not holding a particularly politically-charged or partisan office, though the prevalence of this varies by state. I don't have any problem with citizens saying it's unreasonable to do research on the records of judges, the performance of people like clerks of the courts, or the people who have to run for other sundry offices.

For fairly non-controversial elections, I have no problem looking at the local paper to seek their input. If we can take a small break from our autoasphyxiation over bias in the media, we'd recognize that the editorial boards of newspapers at least take the time to meet with candidates, examine their records and positions, and usually can be counted on to point out issues of corruption, negligence, or irresponsibility in office. I don't like my local paper, but by and large I take their word for it when it comes to an essentially apolitical position (like judge for the Orphans Court here...go figure)-- if a candidate were corrupt or incompetent, they'd likely point it out in their endorsements.

Yeah, this is where it's useful. I generally know enough about the Presidential race, or senatorial/national congressman ones, but when it comes to the town Board of Selectmen or 8 candidates running for state representative, I'll look to the town newspaper for background.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I can't ever really remember a time when newspapers didn't endorse candidates. Generally speaking the larger the paper the more common an endorsement but most daily papers have done it throughout my lifetime.

And I'm virtually certain the legacy of the print media endorsing candidates goes back to at least the 1850's if not earlier.

I thought it went back to the 1790's, when the whole purpose of print media was to support a political party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I thought it went back to the 1790's, when the whole purpose of print media was to support a political party.

Yeah, that's more the era I was thinking but decided to err on the conservative side with my date.

Imagine that, me on the conservative side of something

[Cringer]

The only endorsement I care about is that of Ted Kennedy. He will be down here Wednesday on behalf of Barrack Obama and I am seriously considering going and doing nothing but doing an impression of him until I get kicked out. I don't care if 1 single person would think it is funny, because I would be laughing for the next week. errrrraaaa

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's pretty standard practice for folks around Atlanta to reconsider a vote for any candidate endorsed by the AJC.

Likewise, if the Chicago Tribune endorses a candidate for which I was planning on voting, it worries me.

[Drake]

Who did FOFC endorse? Do we have a committee for this or is it just a mod vote?

[lcjjdnh]

Interesting timing.

Time's Managing Editor on endorsements:

Should Newspapers Still Be Taking Sides?

By Rick Stengel, Managing Editor

During the 1936 presidential campaign, the Chicago Tribune, under its archconservative owner, Colonel Robert McCormick, wholeheartedly endorsed the candidacy of the Republican Alf Landon. The paper was so vehemently anti-F.D.R. that 10 days before the election, switchboard operators at the newspaper answered the phone by saying "Hello. Chicago Tribune. Only 10 days left to save the American way of life."
In the next few weeks, newspapers in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania will endorse candidates for President. In fact, most of them will endorse both a Democrat and a Republican. In 2004, presidential candidates were endorsed by 418 newspapers across the country — 29% of all the papers in the U.S.
I confess that I've never quite understood why newspapers endorse presidential candidates. Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?
Young news consumers are suspicious about traditional authority. They prize objectivity, straightforwardness and transparency. I doubt there's a reader under 30 who gets why newspapers endorse presidential candidates — and most of the ones I talk to ask the following: How can a newspaper be objective on the front page when it endorses a candidate on the editorial page? They're dubious about whether the reporter who covers Hillary Clinton can be objective if his newspaper has endorsed Barack Obama — and vice versa. And they're right. At a time when newspapers are trying to ensure their survival by attracting younger readers, the idea of endorsements is both counterproductive and an anachronism. It's certainly the prerogative of newspapers and their owners to endorse candidates, but in doing so they are undermining the very basis for their business, which is impartiality. It's a recipe for having less influence, not more.
I want our writers and reporters to express a point of view in their stories. They're experts, they've done their homework, and I think it's fair for writers to suggest that after thoroughly reviewing the candidates' policies on health care, they find one more practical than another. That's transparency. Media outlets should publish editorials and take positions, but the vote for President is the most personal decision we make as citizens. No one wants to be told how to vote — and we make all kinds of judgments about the people who do.
Journalists love to cite the fact that the press is the only industry protected by the Constitution. A free press, as Jefferson noted, is part of our system of checks and balances; it is one of the few guarantors of democracy. But for the press to remain free, we need to preserve both the reality and the appearance of that freedom, and endorsements undermine that.

hxxp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1715046,00.html

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Drake

Who did FOFC endorse? Do we have a committee for this or is it just a mod vote?

That'd be interesting.