Every week we hear that this paper or this newsletter is formally endorsing one of the remaining candidates for President. Why? Aren’t newspapers and all media for that matter, in theory, supposed to remain independent in their reporting?
In 1936, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Republican Alf Landon for President of the United States. The paper’s ultra-conservative owner, Colonel Robert McCormick, wholeheartedly despised the democratic FDR. The paper went as far to answer all calls with, “Hello, Chicago Tribune. Only 10 days left to save the American way of life.”
Newspapers were often tied closely to political parties in the 18th and 19th centuries, so propaganda and backroom dealing were obviously prevalent practices. I’d like to believe those days of shady dealings are behind us, but are they? Even as cable news stations clearly tend to favor one of the political parties, at least they are not publicly saying it. They all clearly define that their judgment is equal on both parties and they report evenly about each. Clearly false, but at least they aren’t endorsing candidates! At a time when media respectability is at an all-time low, when old media is being squeezed and downsized everyday to make room for the technological certainties that loom with mobile news, Digg, Buzz, etc, shouldn’t publications ignore the historical traditions and stop this practice?
The Times endorsed John McCain and then a month later wrote up a nasty smear article about an alleged romantic affair he was having with a female lobbyist. Why endorse someone and then blatantly trash them?
As Tuesday looms like the ominous cloud of impending danger for what was once the heavily favored Clinton campaign, both candidates, pundits, advisers, journalists, and more importantly, voters, are looking toward their local newspapers for endorsements. Instead of being told who to vote for, report on the facts more decisively to educate undecided voters on who they’d prefer as President, not who has better hair from the 20 minutes of the one replayed debate they saw.
