(In)credibility:
“I confess that I’ve never quite understood why newspapers endorse presidential candidates. Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?”
—Richard Stengel, managing editor, Time (March 3, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AMEN!
ReplyDeleteI always wondered if I was alone in thinking this practice is ethically weird. It doesn't make sense that one the one hand they're reporting "without bias" on all the candidates, and then on the other hand saying, "this is the candidate we think should win."
How does newspaper management justify that in their minds? Perhaps it's the "this is the way we've always done it" mentality. Which is the worst reason there is to keep doing something stupid.
This has been a hot topic around our editorial department for years. We have always held that we do not endorse, we advise. We go to great lengths to interview the candidates and then say which ones we think will be the best and why, and recommmend you vote that way. Exactly how that differs from endorsing has never been satisfactorily explained to me. I'm just 19th century enough to think that you should speak out in favor of what you believe, and that refusing to share your opinion in the name of "objectivity" defeats the purpose of your editorial service to your readers. What we need is a much sharper and more clearly defined boundary between news, where objectivity is vital, and opinion. I think if that can be achieved, the readers will not come to doubt everything because they dislike our political stances.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all these comments: Newspapers *should* have institutional convictions, and should know more about issues than most readers. So give us your judgment. On the other hand, readers seem weirdly unsophisticated--so, as Stengel suggests, they can't separate the neutral reporting of the news columns from the opinion of the op-ed pages.
ReplyDeleteIn 2004, shortly after Dean Singleton had taken control of the formerly family-owned Salt Lake Tribune ("Utah's Independent Voice Since 1871"), the paper endorsed President Bush's reelection in what has got to rank among the weirdest, most qualified and back-handed endorsement editorials in press history. Throughout the first Bush administration, the Trib had been sharply critical of the president and his policies. Then, suddenly, the newspaper endorsed him. Singleton, a longtime Bush friend from Texas, had vowed never to tamper with his newspapers' op-ed pages, but....
Still, did it make any difference? Does it? The famous Erie County study of newspaper endorsements in--what?--1938? found much less influence from press endorsements than common political wisdom had held. Since then, voters and readers have many more resources to help them form opinions (if they will take advantage of them...), so press endorsements are even less important to voters.
Which brings us back to the conviction vs. credibility question: Why do it if there's no effect? Because this is what we think, and here's why. Every voter has the same right--why not a newspaper?