I have lived through a passel of Presidential
elections. Since I first became old
enough to realize that such things as issues and platforms existed, I have read
the editorials and endorsements in as many newspapers as I could find. As a hobby, I have reached back into the
press morgues to find what the newspapers said about presidential candidates
who were merely historical names to me.
It has been an ever-replenishing source of astonishment and amusement.
To say that this year’s election is remarkable is to engage
in the broadest of understatements. The
politics on display are not in the purview of a blog like this. But with regards to endorsements, I will
observe the amazing one-sidedness – only one of the candidates is being
endorsed, even where it flies in the face of tradition and normal political alignments.
Even more striking this year’s crop of editorial stands is
the number of dis-endorsements that have been published again the very lopsided
numbers. It is one thing for a hitherto conservative
newspaper to endorse a Democrat. It is
quite another for the same paper to run a separate piece arguing why the
so-called conservative candidate is in their eyes unacceptable. One can argue that negative arguments are
never the most effective, but when a publisher and editorial board start with
the stance that one candidate is simply unqualified it makes a strong and
remarkable statement.
A typical argument from the aggrieved supporters of the
maligned candidate is that no one cares what the newspapers say anymore. Newspapers are losing readership in this
country at alarming rates. Fewer people,
according to polls (mostly online), are using newspapers as their primary news
source. Circulation is shrinking, as is
the size of the papers themselves both in terms of page size and number. Many local papers are closing shop, or
selling to national interests while maintaining their local editorial
boards. Some have abandoned unique
editorials altogether. So, the argument goes,
if no one is reading the newspapers, who cares whom they endorse?
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to
hear it, is it Obama’s fault? (There’s that nasty politics again.) But the real question is, does an editorial
lose its authority because fewer people are reading it? It may lose its effect. I remember my grandmother waiting to see who
the Boston Record American endorsed to decide where to cast her vote and the
wild arguments between her and my New York Times devoted mother. Now it is probable that fewer people are informing
their decisions on what a publisher says to them.
But that does not remove the validity of the editorial
statement. In the best circumstances,
editorials and endorsements are carefully thought out and explored
decisions. At a recent luncheon, the
Associate Editor of the Dallas Morning News described the process in
detail: ten editorial board members
wearing their board hats (not personal opinion) hash out what they want an
editorial to say based on their interpretation of the stories and the
prevailing sentiments of their readers and community. It is a painstaking and thoughtful process,
or it should be. Even in those areas
where an editorial is the written from the personal beliefs of a single editor,
it still reflects a consideration of what that individual thinks the readers
believe. Newspapers are not blogs. They have community investment and speak, in
however flawed a manner, with a public voice.
So this year’s flock of endorsements and dis-endorsements do
mean something. They mean that on
consideration of the values and the mores of the community, a trained board of
writers has determined what the community believes – not the only belief to be
sure, but that which reflects the consensus.
In this setting, the overwhelming support of one candidate and the disproportionate
lack of support for the other are all the more striking.
