2 commentsEndorsements
I’m listening to NPR’s On The Media, a podcast with which I have a love/hate relationship. They’re talking about a bill in the senate that would give newspapers an option of becoming non-profits and getting some sort of deals to survive (I forget the details, but it doesn’t matter for this post). The main caveat that was a deal-breaker for the papers was that they would no longer be able to endorse political candidates. They could fact-check and report on candidates all they wanted, but they couldn’t vocally endorse them.
Brooke Gladstone (one of the hosts) made a statement suggesting that this was a critical service that newspapers provide to people. A newspaper publisher came on and said approximately the same thing (mostly about local elections, not presidential ones). He said (paraphrased): “people come up to me all the time and say ‘I use your endorsements as a voting guide and vote for all of them’, so it’s clearly very important”. This is in no way a sign that the newspapers are doing a good job of picking politicians. It’s impossible to test how good the picks are, really, but I don’t think society would be that much worse. If the newspapers were doing no reporting and vetting of candidates, that would certainly be to the detriment of democracy, but endorsement is unnecessary. Why shouldn’t magazines, cable news and network TV news endorse candidates, too? I think this has more to do with (some) power over candidates than helping readers.
2 comments
I disagree. I like to think I’m an “informed” voter… but, for local DC elections basically I took two of the major papers— the Post and the Citypaper, and voted based on their endorsements (and did minor research if they had disagreements). I simply don’t have the time to research all the local elections— school board, chair people, commissioner, etc, and I find the endorsements a highly valuable service.
If not for these newspapers, how else would I know how to vote for a “good” candidate? I just don’t have the interest or time to read about these local politicians year round, although, at the same time, I think they are very important. In my opinion, the newspaper provides me with a valuable service. I would rather vote for an incumbent who has worked hard throughout his/her term (and the newspaper should know that) than a person who perhaps was just indicted (a common incident in DC politics) or some other local “nut” who just decides to run for the fun of it. If not for the newspapers, I would probably be forced to go by candidate “mailings”, and based on the newspaper coverage, I can tell you that some of the wealthier candidates running for these positions are also some of the shadiest— you should consider that Marion Barry is currently a council member in DC— the same coke head, womanizer, tax evader, and felon.
If I wanted to know about computers… I would contact you. If I want to know about local elections… I look to local newspapers. I believe they should be subject matter experts on this, and it should be part of the valuable service of a free media. First amendment, dude.
I think you set up a bit of a false dichotomy here. A newspaper can provide concise facts about a candidate, telling you who’s indicted, what they’re campaigning on, etc, without actually endorsing a candidate. A concise collection of facts about a candidate would lose some detail, of course, but an endorsement on its own loses even more.
If you called me to ask “Mac or PC”, I’d quickly summarize the pros and cons of each, I wouldn’t necessarily have a one-or-the-other answer, and I don’t think it would matter much.
You have a good point about the first amendment, though, and I think that does trump my concern. I’m not necessarily saying that newspapers shouldn’t be allowed to endorse, I just don’t see the big difference between providing facts about a race and endorsing a candidate.
Leave a Comment