Endorsement fallout
October 20th, 2008 at 08:51am Wally Haas
I knew there’d be a lot of folks who would disagree with our endorsement of Barack Obama. I received one phone call and about a dozen letters (so far) telling me why we were wrong. I only received one call telling me we did the right thing.
Most were polite, and I thank those people for making their points in a civilized manner. Others resorted to name-calling, which is not surprising considering how passionate people are about this election.
Normally you hear from people who disagree; seldom do you hear from folks who agree with what you’re saying.
At last count 105 newspapers have endorsed Obama and 33 have endorsed John McCain. The Chicago Tribune, for the first time in its history, endorsed a Democrat for president.
I’d like to remind folks that our vote was not unanimous. It was 7-2. I’d also like to point out that we endorsed Republican Bob Dole over Bill Clinton in 1996 and we endorsed George Bush in 2000. We endorsed John Kerry in 2004.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
10 Comments Add your own
1. LD | October 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
You did the right thing.
2. Orlando Clay | October 20th, 2008 at 9:37 am
LD wrote: “You did the right thing.”
With apologies to the exalted Grand Poobah El Rushbo Maharushie: “Megadittos!!”
3. equalityrkfd= | October 20th, 2008 at 9:43 am
You did the right thing.
4. the dude abides man | October 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
@Wally;
I just don’t understand why the newspaper would endorse any candidate.
Why even give the appearance of impartiality?
I expect to see bias on the opinion page/show, but no other media outlets make such endorsements — surely no trusted internet news sites. WROK doesn’t make an endorsement. Nor does WTVO. Nor does Reuters.
So why do newspapers? How does it benefit the company or the community?
5. Wally Haas | October 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Good question. Newspaper editors have been debating whether or not to endorse quite a bit the last few years.
We continue to endorse because we think it does benefit the community to recommend candidates we think can make a difference. We interview and research candidates and make selections based on what we’ve learned. We think it’s important to take a stand on candidates as well as issues. We don’t think we can write about public policy if we are silent about the people who would make it.
Our endorsements also give you an insight into who we are and what we stand for.
6. the dude abides man | October 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Should Newspapers Still Be Taking Sides?
“…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.
–Rick Stengel, Managing Editor, Time Magazine
IMHO, a presidential endorsement harms your credibility more than it benefits the community.
If the goal of RRStar.com is to truly increase / open the dialogue between reporters and readers, maybe you should have asked if we even wanted a newspaper endorsement.
7. Wally Haas | October 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
We try to separate news and opinion as much as possible. Physically, our offices are down the hall from where reporters sit. I haven’t even had a conversation with some of our reporters, let alone one about politics.
I think endorsements are the right thing to do even if they do add to the number of gray hairs I have. If we eliminate endorsements, we might as well eliminate Opinions pages as well. If that happens, I’ll need to get my resume ready for Wal Mart.
8. the dude abides man | October 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
@Wally,
I disagree that eliminating endorsements would lead to the eliminations of opinion pieces altogether. Other media seem to function just fine without overt endorsements — ESPN does fine without endorsing a particular football team, and they still air opinion shows.
Internet readers don’t make much of a distinction between the Front- and Opinions Pages — at least I don’t. And I’m not of the extremist opinion that an endorsement is a sign of your bosses telling everyone in the newsroom to add a pro-Obama slant to their stories. I just think the newspaper should stick to informing people, not persuading them. Political endorsements simply blur/cross the line too much for my tastes.
The “tradition” of endorsements has had it’s time, and I predict that the future of journalism doesn’t include them. I still don’t see the value or benefit they add to your paper.
9. Egyas | October 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
“We try to separate news and opinion as much as possible. Physically, our offices are down the hall from where reporters sit.”
Wally, I was under the impression that is was the editorial board that made the endorsements. If this is the case, HOW can you keep things impartial when the people doing the political endorsements are the same people that are choosing what stays and what goes from the reporter’s stories?
Or am I missing something here?
10. Wally Haas | October 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
It’s a different sent of people. The metro editors who edit locally written stories are not members of the editorial board. The news editor and copy editors who edit and choose stories for the Nation/World section are not members of the editorial board.
Editorial Board members are the publisher, general manager, executive editor, managing editor, editorial page editor, assistant editorial page editor, politcal editor, online editor and two community members.
Endorsements are based on a simple majority vote. The publisher has veto power, but no publisher here, in my experience, has ever used that power.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed