Why do newspapers endorse candidates?

[MizzouSnives]

This has bothered me for a long time, but why do newspapers endorse candidates?

It's not good journalism, it's unfairly prejudicial, and it goes against everything that journalists are tought (assuming they went to school). So why do it?

Is it to let the good readers know what kind of bias the paper has? (Ha.)

Is it to inform readers of the most qualified candidates? (I guess we're all too dumb to research ourselves.)

Or is it to perversely alter the purpose of a newspaper for the selfish reasons of the publisher, the editor, or other forces at work? It drives me crazy thinking about how stupid it is for supposed bastions of neutrality to so willfully jump into the political muck. It's one thing if a columnist slams a particular candidate, but when an entire newspaper--the entire organization, bands together to declare one candidate superior to another or all others, that is when journalism has failed.

Why do we let this happen? Why the free pass for endorsing candidates?

 

[Wesser]

So they can later claim impartiality when they do a political hit job on one of their endorsees for an alleged sex/improper influence scandal upon which they have no documented proof? Maybe?

 

[kgp]

There is nothing new or unsavory about a paper's having editorial opinions. What is unseemly is falsely pretending that the "news items" are free of influence by the opinions of those writing them. Part of the problem lies in the unintentional slant put on stories-- Bias made a lot of good points.

 

[Wesser]

To actually respond to your question and not be flippant, I would say that endorsements are probably a hold over from the age where the paper was the town crier and there was usually more than one. Today we have Fox News and MSNBC. Yesterday, we had the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Times Herald, the San Antonio Light and SA Express; Houston Post v. Houston Chronicle.

The endorsements were the paper's way of informing "their" type of reader, who "their" candidate was. Remember, old folks used to base their voting decisions on who their paper endorsed -- some still do. However, as media diversifed, the public could get more information from radio, TV and eventually the interwebs. Don't need the paper to learn about campaigns anymore. Moreover, two paper towns have all but completely died out. Thus, their no longer seems to be any need for newspaper endorsements. After, doesn't the Morning News feel that everyone in Dallas are their readers now?

 

[Used2btexaslover]

The editorial board is (theoretically) separate from the newsroom.

 

[MizzouSnives]

KGP-- i read "Bias", it was definitely a good book. I really enjoyed it and recommend it to others.

Wesser--i understand the "holdover" element. I went to journalism school and do know the history of town papers (and i agree with your points about a time when it was necessary), but what i was saying is, "why now?" why are we still doing this when journalism has moved past it? we don't hold over slavery or only allowing men to vote because we "used to do it" so why something like this, from a bygone era?

I don't buy the whole "editorial board is separate from the paper" nonsense. When someone puts an endorsement above the fold and slaps a picture on there, it affects the whole paper. people don't say "the editors of the NYT endorsed Clinton", they say "The NYT endorsed Clinton."

 

[Wesser]

Mizzou: I agree with you.. it is stupid and they should not do it. I just think it is the tyranny of tradition. Papers have always done it, so they will continue to do it without regard to the need or propriety of the practice.

 

[BernOrange]

In reply to:

---

---