Why do "news"papers make endorsements anyway?

[grace0418]

I was ranting to my husband about the Chicago Tribune endorsing Dumbya and how out-of-touch they are with their readership when he asked me point blank: "Why are news papers making endorsements anyways? I know they have for a long time but doesn't it seem odd? If the channel 5 newscast suddenly started openly endorsing a candidate, people would flip out, why is it okay in the paper?"

I didn't really have an answer for this. Thoughts?

[prairie populist]

1. It's a century-old tradition

from the days when newspapers used to name themselves after political parties.

My theory is that among hometown readers they cause more people to vote for the endorsed's opponent than the candidate garnering the endorsement due to the natural contrariness in most people.

Who wants the dorks at the newspaper office telling them how to vote?

[grace0418]

2. Okay, but a lot of other traditions have fallen

by the wayside as people become more enlightened (a very slow process in this country). I wonder why this one hasn't gone bye-bye.

I'm not disagreeing with you, btw, just questioning the practice.

[prairie populist]

3. I agree with you

It is a total contradiction of the concept of providing unbiased news coverage.

Some of the stuff in the Omaha World-Herald, which has endorsed Bush, has my head ready to explode.

Their publisher emeritus has been on a two-month-long screed endorsing the Swift Boat shit. In the issue where Harold Anderson encouraged everyone to read "Unfit for Command" in his op/ed piece the World-Herald's NYT's listing of best selling books in the Lifestyle section had the "Unfit for Command" listing, which was around 7th or 8th at the time, in a larger and bolder font than any other listing. A nice little subliminal endorsement, no doubt.

The World-Herald also misquoted Kerry in an editorial - the "world-leaders vs. more-leaders want to see me elected" debacle. When I pointed this out to them and asked that they correct it they replied that they would not correct the misinformation as the corrected quote did not fit in the context of the point they were making. Real nice.

Newspapers claim they can honor the line between objective news coverage and editorializing, but from the cheap seats here it looks like they often overlap.

[nonconformist]

4. Tradition

They get away with it because they've just always done it. And in current times, with cable news networks and especially the internet at our disposal the actual endorsements have little influence anymore. But for decades, when news and information wasn't as plentiful, they were very influential. Why they still do it I don't know, but I do think they still have some merits. Plus, it's always reminded me of old-school journalism, little photographer running around with a press hat and such. I think we need more reminders of old-school journalism myself.

I think that the editorials are the best thing you get out of the endorsements because a lot of them really laid out legitimate cases for and against. Which also means it's good for Kerry, since not only does he have more endorsements and a larger circulation (last I checked) than Bush, even the OpEd's endorsing Bush were lukewarm, hesitant and critical.

Another way endorsements can impact things is just in the buzz they generate. When a paper famous for only endorsing one party jumps ship, it makes news and gets more attention. Point to Kerry because several former Bush endorsers from 2000 have endorsed Kerry and as far as I know there are no papers that endorsed Gore that went for Bush. While the Trib leans left (actually I think it's just a fair paper) they've always endorsed Republicans from what I understand. Another buzz-worthy endorsement is the non-endorsement. The refusal to give one at all factor has been working in our favor as well, since all of those so far have been right-wing former Bush endorsers.

So while I think the actual endorsement is probably not very important to most people anymore, I think they still do have some pull because people actually read the OpEd and it may make them think a little.

[Piperay]

5. I doubt that their endorsements

are influenticial in the least. Fewer and fewer people read newspapers (getting news from the internet, TV etc) I think that you know your papers leanings and aren't going to depend on it to make up your mind for you.