Main Street Journal: Do endorsements mean anything anymore?

The Main Street Journal Website

The following article is taken from the November 2008 issue of the Main Street Journal. Click “Subscribe Online” above to start your subscription.

Do Endorsements Mean Anything Anymore?
by Jonathan Lindberg

Forgive me for offering one more nail in the coffin of the newspaper industry, but what is the purpose in the outdated and frankly impotent tradition of presidential endorsements? Did anyone vote for Senator Barack Obama because he was endorsed by the Commercial Appeal or Senator John McCain because he was endorsed by the Jackson Sun?

I certainly hope not.

Granted, newspaper endorsements have had a long tradition in the United States dating back to an era when newspapers were the sole source of news. Those days are gone. Today, newspapers are just one of a dozen sources whereby people get their news. In a digital age, newspaper endorsements, either ignored or met with casual yawns, seem counterproductive.

Pop quiz – who was the last Republican presidential candidate to be endorsed by The New York Times? Answer – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1956 (was Michael Dukakis really that overwhelming in 1988?). Or how many Democratic presidential candidates has The Chicago Tribune endorsed over 161 years? Answer – one – Senator Barack Obama, 2008, who happens to live in Chicago (Bob Dole must have really wowed the editorial board in 1996!).

Is there any objectivity in endorsing the party line?

What does the newspaper endorsement really mean in a digital age? Does the newspaper editorial board still assume to speak for tens-of-thousands or even hundreds-of-thousands of readers who get their news from a dozen different sources? Even the media is not that naïve. Still, they are only ones left unable to grasp that most Americans want to open their newspaper or turn on the television and not know who the person reporting the news is voting for.

Someone tell our newspapers to turn off the lights on the twentieth century when they finally decide to leave the room.

Consider this: over the past six months newspaper circulation has continued to plummet –
Washington Post (-1.9%), New York Times (-3.5%), Los Angeles Times (-5%), San Francisco Chronicle (-7%). Of the major American newspapers, only two publications have seen steady circulation numbers: The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

What do these two newspapers have in common? Neither one endorses candidates.

Allen H. Neuharth, founder of USA Today put it like this, “Endorsements are not only an insult to you, but the political coverage of newspapers that do them becomes suspect in the eyes of readers, rightly or wrongly.”

Well said.

So where does that leave us? Despite the public outcry, the national media has dug in their heels and seem unwilling to change. In four years, The New York Times will endorse the Democratic candidate, granted to a smaller audience, and The Chicago Tribune will endorse the Republican candidate (unless that candidate hails from Chicago). And the world will keep on spinning.

The only thing this writer can do is make the case for an endorsement of non-endorsements. Less former politicians, less celebrities and editorial boards shouting out who they are voting for. No offense to Chuck Norris or The New York Times, but would you be so kind as to pull the lever and make room for the rest of us?

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks