Why Do Newspaper Endorse Candidates?

Me | 12/16/01 | Rabidralph

[rabidralph]

I have a few questions.
When did newspapers start endorsing political candidates?

What authority do they have to do this?

Isn't endorsing one candidate over another confirm the bias of a supposedly impartial media?

[rabidralph]

I would like to hear some thoughts on this. And it seems that just newspapers endorse candidates--not radio or TV stations--yet that endorsement is widely reported by the other media, also.

[Silly]

I think the endorsements are -- supposedly -- coming from the editorial board of the newspaper; that is, the "opinion department." Perhaps newspapers think that these boards are insulated from the "fact department," i.e., the reportors. It's a theory.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Most colonial newspapers, and throughout the 19th century were clearly partisan, and frequently downright vicious in their political approach. It's only recently (last 50-60 years) that the idea of an "impartial" media has been sanctified. Of course, we all know what that means.

[Petronski]

The Bilderburger membership manual both gives them the authority and mandates their selections.

</sarcasm>

[rabidralph]

frequently downright vicious in their political approach.

Oh, yes. I remember "yellow journalism." You never hear that anymore. That term never should have gone out of style.

[The Mayor]

Isn't endorsing one candidate over another confirm the bias of a supposedly impartial media?

Absolutley, then they can promote the agenda, with the local news on the side of the candidate they effectivly can control the outcome of the race. Just look at the western new york area(Barfallo).

[waxhaw]

I would echo Tijeras_slim's comment's - newspapers have been endorsing political candidates since there were newspapers in America. It is only in the last 20 years or so that the big papers seem to walk in lockstep with each other and endorse overwhelmingly liberal candidates... perhaps because all the big papers are no longer "independent" but simply part of the megalithic, monolithic bolshevik mainstream media.

[John H K]

Yep, the endorsing of candidates is what is very old...what is NEW is newspapers pretending to be impartial and apolitical.

All American newspapers used to pretty much identify themselves with a political party, and made no attempt to hide it. British newspapers today reflect this more...the various British major papers (The Times, Independent, Guardian, etc.) are all quite a bit more open about their slant and point of view than American papers.

We'd be far better off if we went back to the "old way." The Washington Post and NYT (and the overwhelming majority of newspapers in the country) would clearly identify themselves as "Democratic Party" newspapers, etc. As Rush Limbaugh points out, what is most annoying isn't that most of the media is biased, it's that THEY WON'T ADMIT IT.

[Dan from Michigan]

Everything is biased. There is no such thing as objectiveness.

[lowbridge]

What authority do they have to do this?

I think it's called the first amendment.

[bimmer]

The newspaper I write columns for does not endorse candidates, I am happy to report. In general, it's an editorial board/publisher thing.

[rabidralph]

What authority do they have to do this?

I don't question their First Amendment right to speak, what I question is, saying that this particular candidate is the one that would best serve the city, state or country. The First Amendment would be best served in a newspaper read by everyone if they laid out the facts on each candidate and let the voter decide. To me, a newspaper endorsement is as powerful as an announcement by the Surgeon General or a study done by a medical establishment.

[Cicero]

Regretably, impartiality and objectivity have become sheer propaganda words. The newspapers are completely biased, including their use of these and similar words. Thus, conservatives are always extreme, nazi, or partisan, whereas liberals are always moderate, centrist, or bipartisan. Abortionists have rights, but right-to-lifers do not, because they are extremists. Most whites are racist, but it's impossible for a black to be racist. Since media persons are superior morally to everyone else, they are best equipped to decide when they should be objective and when they should take sides against the forces of evil.

Or, to give you the short answer: "Mother knows best."

[GOPJ]

Strangely, free speech rights extend to the press. Something to do with a document called the constitution, or something like that...

[pcl]

It has gone on as long as I can remember.

OTOH, I do not know anyone who pays attention to the Newspaper's recommendations. The people who would follow such leading by the nose generally do not vote. If they do vote they produce hanging chads and other vote invalidating errors, thank God.

[lowbridge]

The First Amendment would be best served in a newspaper read by everyone if they laid out the facts on each candidate and let the voter decide. To me, a newspaper endorsement is as powerful as an announcement by the Surgeon General or a study done by a medical establishment.

They have the right NOT to be forced into printing info that they don't want to print, for whatever reasons.

[rabidralph]

Strangely, free speech rights extend to the press

Strangely, you did not read my reply in #12. It's the authoratative stamp of approval that endorsements seem to render, rather than the mere reporting of facts. Endorsements are not necessarily based on fact the way newspapers report other news like a car accident or a sporting event.

[JCG]

What authority do they have to do this?

They asked me and I gave it to them.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[holyscroller]

They do it because they thing the readers are stupid and not smart enough to know who or what to vote for, so they, the all-knowing brains, will tell us how to vote.

Their recommendations are good information though. I always see who and what they endorse, THEN VOTE THE OPPOSITE!