Newspaper endorsements going against the will of your subscribers

Is it unusual for a large paper's ME to be on an editorial board? I've always thought anyone involved in coverage decisions has no business on an editorial board. I understand some papers are so small they have no choice, and I always expect a publisher to get a seat at the table.

 

Yes, an ME being on the editorial board is ununsual.

 

I repeat following the same lines as what I posted upthread: What's the point in today's environment of pissing off half your readers?

 

This thread title is "Newspapers going against the will of their readers". I have always wondered which readers are being referred to. I believe the Richmond Times-Dispatch has had a conservative editorial philosophy since at least WWII. I believe the paper editorially considered Obama the anti-christ. The city of Richmond is a very Democratic town (large black population). The Richmond metro area, long very red, is rapidly changing over to purple (a big reason Virginia has a Democratic governor, two senators and was carried by Clinton). So when we say the paper went against the majority of the readers is the Times-Dispatch has made endorsements against the will of their readers are we referring to the metro population as a whole or the will of the advertisers, members of the publisher's country club and other wealthy white folk in the metro area?

 

Boston is the most Democratic city you can imagine and my paper the Herald only endorsed Republicans. It had no effect on anyone. Circulation declined like all other newspapers did. Republicans (except for Governors, a weird thing our state has) didn't get any more votes. The readers who say they're mad about editorials won't cheer up if you stop endorsing candidates, they'll just get mad about something else.

 

No newspaper is required to make an endorsement specifically to please a plurality of its readers.

 

I'm not sure ... but I don't think the RTD publisher's arguments have anything to do with who is endorsed. He's finally come around to the idea that endorsements themselves are dubious investments of scant employee time and space in the paper.

(I posted in this thread because when I searched "newspaper endorsements," this was the best fit. Apologies if that confused anybody)

 

I agree with you about the publisher's arguments. I was responding to the thread title. Though I wonder if the Richmond area's swing towards Team Blue was a factor
not mentioned, given the editorial opinions of the paper.

 

If this is a Republican-oriented editorial side, as I deduce from this thread, then having to deal with neo-Confederate Corey Stewart might've prompted the decision. My personal opinion is that there is no need for editorials at all. Just put bylines on opinion pieces and label them as such. But publishers are often in the business for the thrill of shooting their mouths off.

 

I always thought the business plan of the Boston Herald was to try to attract Republican readers in response to the liberal Globe. And it kind of worked for a while. The Globe was dominant but the Herald survived until the newspaper industry went to hell in a hand basket.

In the good old days when towns had multiple newspapers the papers had frequently been founded explicitly to promote the interests of one political party and this is still the case in foreign cities where multiple papers exist.

I do agree that newspaper editorials are a bad idea in today's economy. They anger many people while actually changing few votes.

 

I think the Herald set it itself in opposition to the Globe (ethnic white working class v. Harvard, liberal elite) a while ago and that in the last 30 years or so that came to be associated with an element of the Republican party.

 

My very, very, very Republican family members *always* read the Herald (even if they were really only reading for the sports coverage) and never touched the Globe.

As a Bruins fan, I only read the two for the sports coverage, and enjoyed both papers.