1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Furor over Stewart-Colbert rally

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Mizzougrad96, Oct 14, 2010.

  1. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I get that, but have had more than a few conversations with people in the community who just don't.
    Most reporters and editors are faceless, let alone I doubt many people know what they drive or where they live. They open the paper and see Joe Blow for Mayor and assume everyone at the paper thinks that way.
     
  2. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    But if the paper does an endorsement, they do have a horse in the race.

    If people see an endorsement, they're going to think that the paper favors that candidate, and question every story involving that candidate and their opponent.
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    No, they don't.

    I think it's a nuanced distinction, but I think it's a clear distinction nonetheless. An endorsement is like a public service, presumably from a dispassionate observer of the election options. A bumper sticker or sign in the yard or active campaigning is aligning yourself with a side.

    I do understand the argument about reader perception. I would be perfectly fine with eliminating endorsements all together.
     
  4. kmayhugh

    kmayhugh Member

    Seems like circular logic to me. The newspaper can endorse a candidate without being biased because the newspaper is a non-biased source, and the ordinary citizen cannot because endorsing a candidate proves they are biased.
     
  5. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    And to be honest, most newspapers I know are biased toward the local chamber of commerce. You won't find many papers whose endorsements mostly oppose whatever the CofC recommends.
     
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It's not circular logic. There's a difference between supporting a candidate (bumper sticker) and endorsing one (editorial endorsement).

    Again, one is a public service, the other is activism.
     
  7. kmayhugh

    kmayhugh Member

    Okay, I see the distinction you are making. But in terms of journalism ethics and the reasons behind those ethics, I'm not sure that distinction makes an important difference.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I think that's an important question, and ultimately unanswerable in a definitive way: Which is important? The actor's intent? Or the recipient's (frequently misguided) interpretation?

    Personally, I think that newspapers are for the most part clear enough about the purpose behind endorsing a candidate - a dispassionate public service (endorsement) rather than emotionally involved boosterism (bumper sticker). I'm not sure that it should be up to the publication to sacrifice its authoritative, learned voice in the community in order to kowtow to what amounts to a sliver of the overheated masses (and, yes, I know this somewhat contradicts what I said above about endorsements, but the more I think about the issue, the more I lean the other direction).
     
  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It is actually an enormous difference. The editorial board is dispassionately analyzing the race in a (theoretically) non-partisan way. The employees are actually supporting a candidate.
     
  10. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Maybe papers should do "Likes/Dislikes" about each candidate. "We like Joe Blow's plan for cutting taxes. We dislike Joe Blow's five perjury convictions."
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I like that on a certain level. On the other hand, it feels like a little bit of a cop-out. Hmmmm ...

    As for the larger issue - the distinction we're chewing over - let me try to paint this at a lower level of abstraction. I am quite sure that Elizabeth Kolbert would endorse, intellectually, legislation that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. However, it would be completely unacceptable for Kolbert to drive around with a Greenpeace sticker on her car.
     
  12. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    But there's a very thin line between the two and it can be seen by the readers that there is no line.

    And what the paper is concerned about is perception in its reporting. That's why (I would hope, unless they're just being corporate control freaks) you don't want readers questioning the paper's impartiality.

    I'll give an example. At my first weekly paper, the local Congressman was running for re-election. This Congresman was a long-time, established incumbent who had bipartisan respect in Washington. He ended up coming into our office, shaking hands with everyone, and our owner/publisher was all buddy-buddy with him. Sure enough, next week's paper, the Congressman was endorsed.

    Now, he may well have deserved the endorsement. But you can't help but think if there was some motivation in him coming into the office. The other party's candidate did not visit.

    Frankly, unless a new Hitler is running for office, I'd rather newspapers not endorse anyone, especially if they're telling their employees not to actively support anyone.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page