Newspaper endorsements

I suppose.
I wonder if Countrywide was a good lender?
Or Washington Mutual a banker?
Or GM or Ford an automaker?
Mervyns a retailer?
I wonder if Linens 'n Things knew something about homegoods?
Did Shoe Pavilion sell shoes? Or Wickes or Levitz?

The infestation isn't our own.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I've always wondered why papers make endorsements. Aren't newspapers *supposed* to be neutral? I know it is the editorial board that does this, but do you think the average person knows that (or cares)? I hear media bias a lot from my wife's family (and I'm sure it's everywhere - that paper is liberal, that paper is conservative). Why fan the flames?

 

A reader's take:

Though we are (fingers crossed) settled now, we had a stretch where we lived in six cities in ten years. Once, when we had moved shortly before the election, my only votes based solely on my own analysis were for governor and senator. I used the newspaper's endorsements even for major local races that time. If we had lived someplace for a year, I knew on my own who I wanted on the county commission and the school board, but the register of wills? And all the judges?

The paper's editorial stance was of no consequence. I happily voted against the Pulliam paper's choices in one town.

 

Nah, that takes too much effort. But if Temple can Twitter it ...

 

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875478

To update the numbers mentioned in the story
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875517

 

Newspapers should be ready, willing and able to alienate large segments of their readership by carrying unflattering coverage of topics near and dear to the hearts of certain segments of their audiences. Such as big business, HMOs, union leadership, the enivronment, environmental activists, the local NFL franchise, etc.

They need not go out of their way to alienate nearly half of their audience simply by saying, "We favor candidate A over candidate B,'' especially when a good share of the reason is sheer political leanings.

 

I believe newspapers should not only dispense with endorsements, but with editorials. BUT, endorsements do matter down-ballot. My son was a manager for a losing state rep campaign while he was at BU. They sweated the Globe's endorsement big-time, because a HUGE percentage of voters, including many well-informed citizens, are only vaguely aware of state legislature by-elections,

 

To me, if we want to trust that the readers should know the difference between news coverage and the editorial page, then a newspaper should trust that readers know the difference between a newspaper employee's political beliefs and the news coverage.

 

We've had this round-and-round several times on here.
Vote. Vote all you want. Vote in every election. Show up to the special Water Board fucking runoff election.
But, if you cover Texas don't wear a Longhorn polo in the pressbox. If you're a journalist, don't put up a yard sign. No one is asking you to curb your beliefs. It's at matter of perception and professionalism.
(Not to mention, in the biggest newsrooms and media outlets in this country, you can be fired for it.)

 

See, I actually think they DO matter for certain undecided voters, and in the swing states, that could make a difference.

I can't accept the notion that when the L.A. Times breaks from recent history and decides to endorse somebody -- and picks Obama -- that it's not going to matter to at least some people in Southern California.

 

Presidential picks aside, endorsements do have value for issues. Mrs. Editude, not unlike many grownups, is pressed for time and trusts our periodical to provide a rare no-agenda look behind the ballot arguments. Doesn't mean she copies the recommendations, but she is aware of a reasoned point of view.