I’m a former political reporter and statehouse bureau chief for the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, a daily newspaper covering the Merrimack Valley along the Massachusetts and New Hampshire border. In the early 1980s I covered elections for every position from local school committees and boards of selectmen to state representatives, US Congress, the US Senate, and in 1985, the US Presidency.
I enjoyed the beat and did my level best to be as objective as possible in my reporting, fact-checking candidate claims, and always offering candidates a chance to respond to, or rebut, claims made by their opponents. However being Massachusetts, the dominance of the Democratic Party made some of the races feel like foregone conclusions, whereas over the border in New Hampshire, the Republican Party was dominant: neither state would have been considered a “swing” state, however both had a mixture of elected officials from both parties.
As I got to know the candidates I realized the minority party was less than eager to trust me or respond to my questions for the single reason that on the eve of the election the paper would publish on its editorial page its endorsements. Almost without exception the candidates it blessed were local Democrats. I assume the endorsements were handed down by the owner/publisher and that was the power of owning a newspaper personified, so I kept my mouth shut because otherwise there was never any whiff of interference with my coverage. But those endorsements made my job harder, not easier, and trying to argue my independence to a skeptical candidate and their handlers was ultimately what drove me out of political journalism and into the business and technology beats.
Being young and naive I couldn’t comprehend why, in a job where the concept of objectivity and fairness were paramount, the newspaper would suspend its neutrality and tell its readers who to vote for. Sure, I understand the history of American journalism where most cities were covered by multiple newspapers competing for the same readers, most blatantly and openly aligned with one party or the other. As a voter, the idea that I would register as anything other than an Independent seemed to me to be a biased career blunder beyond comprehension. While covering the 1984 New Hampshire presidential primaries I watched top tier political reporters like Walter Robinson at the Boston Globe, or David Broder at the Washington Post go out of their way to refuse even a free cup of coffee offered to them at a candidate’s event. Some journalists, I believe, even felt that political reporters should not vote at all to keep themselves objectively centered.
Last week the owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post told their editorial boards not to endorse a candidate in this election. The outrage in the comments sections, the vows to cancel subscriptions, the accusations of billionaire cowardice and perfidy made me realize how far journalism has drifted from the core principle of objectivity to opinion. Seriously, does any editorial board believe its endorsement is going to change any intelligent voter’s mind when it comes to casting their ballot? I have no problem with a columnist stating a preference for a candidate or political position. I have no problem with readers writing letters or posting comments with their opinions. But when the nearly always anonymous editorial political endorsements are published as the preference of the news organization as a whole, that’s where the public’s trust in journalism begins to erode.
Appreciate this take, particularly from a newspaperman. And while I might debate the point in general – from the perspective of a reader rather than a writer, I don’t see much of a problem with editorial boards doing some basic analysis and stating “this is what we feel all of our reporting suggests is the right outcome” – I think two things for me make the case here materially different.
Most obviously, there are the candidates. One is running a fairly run of the mill, slightly left of center campaign. The other is actively platforming racist speakers who – whether it’s deliberately or accidentally – parrot actual Nazi rhetoric. Coupled with the fact that multiple military leaders who served under the former President are publicly warning that the candidate in question, in their professional estimation, meets the definition of a fascist and has already attempted to subvert the will of a popular vote.
Second, there is the timing. If the LA Times or Washington Post had reached those decisions two years ago, or even in January, I think there would be debate but less if any outrage. 11 days before an incredibly consequential elections in the case of the Post, however, I think can correctly be read as preemptive capitulation to a would be dictator. Which I think stands in stark contrast with, say, the NY Times – who admittedly have had their own problems with their coverage.
In the abstract, then, I think I’d be open to the kind of healthy debate you’re priming above. In this particular case, however, I have sympathy with the (surprisingly large) number of people who have performatively cancelled their subscriptions because the stakes here could not be higher.
Unrelated to all of that, hope you’re well and that the Cape is still treating you kindly.
SOG,
Thank you for the thoughtful remarks. Working backwards through them, let me reply.
Cancelling subscriptions to a newspaper seems like a case of the nose spiting the face to me. Unsubscribing undermines the already precarious financial foundation the news organization depends on, and it shuts the reader off from the good work of the reporters toiling on their behalf. A society without an independent and unbiased press will default to ever more partisan sources of dubious credibility for their information and find itself in a news desert. If not the Washington Post or LA Times, then what will fill the void given that few cities have the luxury of multiple newspapers to choose from.
The timing of the decision by Soon-Shiong and Bezos is unfortunate but indicative of the neck-and-neck polls. As a matter of policy the announcement not to endorse ideally should have been made before the primaries last winter. As a business decision it makes sense to suspend endorsements at the last minute to avoid alienating 50% of the readership in what is shaping up as coin toss for many undecided voters. I can understand the outrage and allegations of wimping out given the stakes, but I also feel its a bit naive to believe undecided voters will seriously factor any endorsement into their decision this late in the game.
I have no issue with the publishing of an opinion or preference for a candidate or referendum question under a columnist’s byline. But editorial endorsements are nearly always anonymous, speak with the voice of the “Royal We,” and frankly feel patronizing to me and a bit opaque. Am I hearing the consensus of the newsroom? Is this the informed opinion of the paper’s top editors, or am I reading the owner’s prerogative?
Is it reasonable to criticize these two owners for their decision to abstain? I have to imagine some undecided voters are contemplating making the same choice; either by not voting at all, or by selecting a third party fringe candidate, writing in their dog’s name, flipping a coin, or holding their nose and voting not so much for a candidate as against the other. We voters have the cover of a secret ballot and leave no trace of our individual decision. Reporters have to suffer the consequences of their paper’s endorsements long after the election is over.
The model I recommend the news industry follow is the one established by Institute for Non-Profit News in its membership standards. I recommend reading those standards at https://inn.org/about/membership-standards/ where one standard expected of a non-profit news organization is that the news : “Is nonpartisan. Nonprofit news organizations do not endorse candidates and, under IRS guidelines, should not favor any candidate for public office in coverage or other action.”
All is well here on the Cape. Congratulations on a great Monktoberfest. I heard great things from David Pollak at Spice Labs and wish I could have been there.
DCC