Here's hoping this outbreak of common sense spreads faster than bed bugs because I suspect election endorsements are the single most foolish things newspapers do. Here I'll lay out five reasons why and then suggest a much better system.
I would love to hear some arguments from people who disagree with me on this. Clearly a lot do because over 700 publications made endorsements in the last United States election, which I find inscrutable and weird.
Why printing an election endorsement is insane:
1) It debases - Though endorsements are written by an editor or at most an editorial board, they reflect on the whole paper. The New York Times endorses Obama, The New York Post endorses McCain, etc. All the work your reporters went through to maintain their independence and impartiality? Gone, to the public eye. The institution itself is now formally in the camp of a political party, which is exactly where it ought not be.
2) It lingers - Ottawa Citizen columnist Dan Gardner continually ridicules the Globe and Mail every time the Harper government makes an inept fiscal move. And why shouldn't he? The Globe endorsed Harper for his fiscal chops in 2011. If his government fails and turns our economy into pudding, the Globe will have been wrong. The paper's reputation is now tied to the actions of a politician. Worse, criticizing the government's economic plans will now strike many readers as hypocrisy.
3) It's arrogant - As the Sun Times points out, newspaper endorsements don't have much impact. Of course they don't. Most voters have made up their minds by the time endorsements come out in the last days before an election. And even if you are undecided, who wants to be told how you should act? Especially by the profession most people rank somewhere between used car salesman and date rapist. Any first-year psych student can tell you this is not how the human brain works.
4) It's alienating (and probably bad for business) - So you're a newspaper and you endorse candidate X. Those who support him/her/it will probably nod smugly, maybe tweet it, then stop caring. But boy, are people who back candidate Y going to be pissed. They'll tear into your logic. They'll accuse you of being a conservative/liberal shill, and maybe they'll stop subscribing to a paper so clearly in the bag for that asshole candidate X. Congrats, you've lost all credibility with half your readers. Was that really worth it?
5) It's Archaic - We've supposedly evolved past the age when newspapers were openly partisan. That dark age was decades ago (or, alternately, a half-dozen time zones away in the U.K.). Most newspapers now look down their noses at the Sun chains of the world that don't even feign balance. So how can newspapers claim to be modern champions of objective scrutiny while they're still clinging to the one act that most defined the days of biased, agenda journalism? I'll say this for the Sun papers, at least they accept who they are and don't try to dress it up.
Ok, so the counter-argument to all this is that editorial writers sometimes do have intelligent, thoughtful arguments for why one candidate is the best choice. Why should they silence themselves on such a critical issue for some ideal of impartiality that most people don't buy anyway?
Here's what you do instead: be humble, be personal, and be careful.
Don't hide behind the banner of the paper. Have the writer or editorial board put their name(s) on the piece. Then, don't tell people how to vote. Instead, tell them how you will be voting and explain why as best you can. Keep in mind that every political platform benefits some people more than others. Look beyond your own situation and write persuasively about which platform will help the greatest number of people. Avoid talking points used by the parties.
Andrew Coyne of
It's that easy. And in this digital age, as an industry struggling with the issue of printing words on paper and handing them out individually, we should really jump at the easy solutions when we can.
