Berl Falbaum
If there ever was a tempest in a teapot it occurred about two weeks before the November 5 election when the owners of The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times decided not to endorse a candidate for president.
Several editors and staff writers at both papers resigned. Many in the two cities cancelled subscriptions, and the papers were condemned by their colleagues around the country for “cowardice” and “abdication of their moral responsibility and public duty.”
Whew!
Now that the election is over, let’s examine the issue more calmly and logically.
First, I don’t think I am wrong in concluding that readers of this column did not know that Gannett, America’s largest newspaper chain, did not endorse a presidential candidate in any of its 200 papers, including The Detroit Free Press. Yet, we did not hear a peep.
The Detroit News also sat out this election, the fourth time it did so in its history. In the 2016 election, as a matter of “conscience,” The News made an enlightened endorsement by supporting the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.
It argued that while Johnson was “the longest of long shots with an electorate that has been conditioned to believe only Republicans and Democrats can win major offices.”
I was so conditioned, but after reading that, I kept an eye on Johnson the night of the election. It was a real nail-biter. He only lost by some 60 million votes, garnering a total of 4.4 million votes.
While The News wrapped its editorial arm around Johnson, his running mate, William Weld, suggested that Hillary Clinton might be the most qualified candidate in the race. That had to be a first in politics.
Moreover, there is no “surprise” when newspapers endorse candidates because their political stance is pretty well known by their readers. In 151 years, The News, has never endorsed a Democrat for president, and The Free Press has almost always tilted toward Democrats. Had the two papers not bowed out, The News surely would have endorsed Trump and The Free Press Kamala Harris.
Next, there is an assumption by the critics of The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times that endorsements somehow help voters make a decision.
That day is long gone. Newspapers may have played a role when they were the primary source of information many years ago. With all the sources of information, including, of course, the Internet, there is no shortage of information; indeed, voters are overwhelmed by it.
I doubt anyone reading this column ever voted for a presidential candidate because of the local paper’s endorsement. Endorsements may help in low profile races such as for city clerks, aldermen, university trustees, etc., offices for which the electorate has little knowledge. These endorsements are also useful to the candidates who can publicize them in their campaign materials.
Considering this case particularly, does anyone believe that voters in the seven swing states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona — really cared who the two papers that operate in Democratic states endorsed for president?
Then there is the issue of how editorial endorsements contribute to the skepticism with much of the public believing that the media are biased, primarily leaning left.
Jeff Bezos, owner of The Post, in defending his decision in an op-ed article, made that very point. He wrote: “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
The public is not aware that the news and editorial departments operate independently. They don’t even communicate with each other in an attempt to maintain objectivity in the reporting process.
Endorsements undermine this principle. The public has reason to be suspicious that a newspaper will remain objective in the coverage of candidates and policies it opposes or supports. It believes that papers, overall, slant reporting to support the paper’s editorial preferences.
In the many decades I have been in this business, I was aware of a few papers that highlighted bad news on policies and candidates it either opposed or gave special coverage to those it favored.
The News, apparently aware of public concerns, ends its endorsement editorials with the following note: “Endorsements are determined independently by The Detroit News Editorial Board and have no influence on news coverage.”
Finally, newspapers are private institutions, and owners have a right to decide whom to endorse, whether to endorse at all, what to cover, where to place the stories and all the other editorial decisions that go into publishing.
Many years ago, a West Coast paper invited me to a four-day trial to become one of its editorial writers.
It did not take long for me to realize this would be a bad fit. They thought I was a “communist” and I judged them to be “Nazis.” (It wasn’t quite that bad.)
I knew I could not take the job. (They did not offer one, either.) But I could not quarrel. The owner would pay me to write editorials to express his/her point of view.
That is the right of all newspaper owners. Those working for him/her may not agree but they are employees. As long as the owners are honest and do not engage in immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, the staffs have no basis on which to beef.
This is true even when the motives of newspaper owners are to protect the bottom line and potential retaliatory actions by President-elect Donald Trump. All business owners work to protect profits which, of course, assures employment for the very employees who have chastised the “no endorsement” action by The Post and L.A. Times.
Admittedly, that may not be a very commendable motive, but given the questionable value of endorsements, what point is there to embrace a candidate and threaten the possible demise of the two papers?
Both papers surely would have thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, the Democrat. And thereby lies the tale. The critics, underneath it all, were angry that their political beliefs were ignored and blunted.
When I was still teaching journalism at Wayne State University, I explained to students that if their goal was to write editorials, they will have to live with this reality. This is not a freedom of the press issue. They would have to implement the boss’s desire as in any other job.
So, let’s stop all the nonsensical breast-beating and soul-searching and endorse ending endorsements altogether.
Several editors and staff writers at both papers resigned. Many in the two cities cancelled subscriptions, and the papers were condemned by their colleagues around the country for “cowardice” and “abdication of their moral responsibility and public duty.”
Whew!
Now that the election is over, let’s examine the issue more calmly and logically.
First, I don’t think I am wrong in concluding that readers of this column did not know that Gannett, America’s largest newspaper chain, did not endorse a presidential candidate in any of its 200 papers, including The Detroit Free Press. Yet, we did not hear a peep.
The Detroit News also sat out this election, the fourth time it did so in its history. In the 2016 election, as a matter of “conscience,” The News made an enlightened endorsement by supporting the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.
It argued that while Johnson was “the longest of long shots with an electorate that has been conditioned to believe only Republicans and Democrats can win major offices.”
I was so conditioned, but after reading that, I kept an eye on Johnson the night of the election. It was a real nail-biter. He only lost by some 60 million votes, garnering a total of 4.4 million votes.
While The News wrapped its editorial arm around Johnson, his running mate, William Weld, suggested that Hillary Clinton might be the most qualified candidate in the race. That had to be a first in politics.
Moreover, there is no “surprise” when newspapers endorse candidates because their political stance is pretty well known by their readers. In 151 years, The News, has never endorsed a Democrat for president, and The Free Press has almost always tilted toward Democrats. Had the two papers not bowed out, The News surely would have endorsed Trump and The Free Press Kamala Harris.
Next, there is an assumption by the critics of The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times that endorsements somehow help voters make a decision.
That day is long gone. Newspapers may have played a role when they were the primary source of information many years ago. With all the sources of information, including, of course, the Internet, there is no shortage of information; indeed, voters are overwhelmed by it.
I doubt anyone reading this column ever voted for a presidential candidate because of the local paper’s endorsement. Endorsements may help in low profile races such as for city clerks, aldermen, university trustees, etc., offices for which the electorate has little knowledge. These endorsements are also useful to the candidates who can publicize them in their campaign materials.
Considering this case particularly, does anyone believe that voters in the seven swing states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona — really cared who the two papers that operate in Democratic states endorsed for president?
Then there is the issue of how editorial endorsements contribute to the skepticism with much of the public believing that the media are biased, primarily leaning left.
Jeff Bezos, owner of The Post, in defending his decision in an op-ed article, made that very point. He wrote: “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
The public is not aware that the news and editorial departments operate independently. They don’t even communicate with each other in an attempt to maintain objectivity in the reporting process.
Endorsements undermine this principle. The public has reason to be suspicious that a newspaper will remain objective in the coverage of candidates and policies it opposes or supports. It believes that papers, overall, slant reporting to support the paper’s editorial preferences.
In the many decades I have been in this business, I was aware of a few papers that highlighted bad news on policies and candidates it either opposed or gave special coverage to those it favored.
The News, apparently aware of public concerns, ends its endorsement editorials with the following note: “Endorsements are determined independently by The Detroit News Editorial Board and have no influence on news coverage.”
Finally, newspapers are private institutions, and owners have a right to decide whom to endorse, whether to endorse at all, what to cover, where to place the stories and all the other editorial decisions that go into publishing.
Many years ago, a West Coast paper invited me to a four-day trial to become one of its editorial writers.
It did not take long for me to realize this would be a bad fit. They thought I was a “communist” and I judged them to be “Nazis.” (It wasn’t quite that bad.)
I knew I could not take the job. (They did not offer one, either.) But I could not quarrel. The owner would pay me to write editorials to express his/her point of view.
That is the right of all newspaper owners. Those working for him/her may not agree but they are employees. As long as the owners are honest and do not engage in immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, the staffs have no basis on which to beef.
This is true even when the motives of newspaper owners are to protect the bottom line and potential retaliatory actions by President-elect Donald Trump. All business owners work to protect profits which, of course, assures employment for the very employees who have chastised the “no endorsement” action by The Post and L.A. Times.
Admittedly, that may not be a very commendable motive, but given the questionable value of endorsements, what point is there to embrace a candidate and threaten the possible demise of the two papers?
Both papers surely would have thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, the Democrat. And thereby lies the tale. The critics, underneath it all, were angry that their political beliefs were ignored and blunted.
When I was still teaching journalism at Wayne State University, I explained to students that if their goal was to write editorials, they will have to live with this reality. This is not a freedom of the press issue. They would have to implement the boss’s desire as in any other job.
So, let’s stop all the nonsensical breast-beating and soul-searching and endorse ending endorsements altogether.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
