Newspaper endorsements. Should you care?

posted at 1:01 pm on October 20, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

It’s a perennial tradition in American elections which dates back pretty much as long as we’ve had elections. The board of editors at most all of the major newspapers get together every four years and pen some long winded explanation of how they have carefully weighed all of the facts, considered the angles, and will now share with you their expert opinion about who you should vote for and why. It’s the coveted newspaper endorsement, and campaigns love to talk about them when they get them. (And they love berating the ones who endorse the opponent nearly as much.) But is anyone even paying attention to these dinosaurs of the political process any more?

In Florida, the Tampa Bay Times went for Obama, but Mitt Romney managed to split the bounty by picking up the endorsement of The Orlando Sentinel who had backed Obama in 2008. The Denver Post went for the President, as did the Salt Lake City Tribune (!) which has backed both Republicans and Democrats over the last few cycles. Should anyone be listening to these former gatekeepers? Doug Mataconis doesn’t seem to think so.

There was a time, of course, when newspapers were far more explicitly partisan than they are today, not just in their editorials but also in their news coverage. Even after that era passed, newspaper endorsements used to hold great sway especially in large cities. However, I honestly have to wonder what value these endorsements have in an era when anyone with an Internet connection can find out whatever they want to know about any candidate for any office. If there really are people out there who end up deciding who they are going to vote for based on who gets endorsed by a self-appointed board of experts who happen to have access to a newspaper’s Editorial Page, then I have to wonder about their own thinking capacities. Are there really people out there who are so devoid of critical judgement that they base their voting decisions on who some group of anonymous people decided to endorse? As I’ve admitted before, I hardly fall into the category of the “typical voter,” but I quite honestly cannot understand a person who would be influenced by what someone else tells them in an anonymous editorial.

All of this comes during the same week that Newsweek announced they were finally throwing in the towel on print production. After grappling with the shocking realization that nobody was buying their product, they have decided to “embrace the digital future.” (Or, to put it less charitably, they’re scrapping their magazine and becoming a blog. Welcome aboard! Hot Gas can always use the competition to keep us on our toes.) The point is, even though it’s a weekly magazine as opposed to a daily fish wrap, the trend for print news sources is all heading in the same direction – down. To think they still wield any serious influence in elections seems overly optimistic.

Doug points to Greg Mitchell, formerly of Editor & Publisher, who claims that newspaper endorsements pick the winners on a state by state basis a large majority of the time. That may be true, but is it because they are influencing the decisions of their dwindling pool of readers or because they just happened to pick the person who was more popular with their potential reader base? I know… I know.. I’m a cynical old bastage. What can I say?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yeah, we know, ALL newspapers endorse the SCOAMF except the WSJ and Washington Examiner.

So no, you don’t care.

And, as always, I don’t give a $h1t!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on October 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I think it’s interesting when a liberal paper backs a Republican. Other than that, I really don’t care one way or another.

joekenha on October 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM

No.

bayview on October 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM

BTW – 1st!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on October 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Doug points to Greg Mitchell, formerly of Editor & Publisher, who claims that newspaper endorsements pick the winners on a state by state basis a large majority of the time. That may be true, but is it because they are influencing the decisions of their dwindling pool of readers or because they just happened to pick the person who was more popular with their potential reader base?

This here precisely describes the glitch in liberal reasoning. They choose the point that supports their view and refuse to see that there may be one or two or more other reasons for why they are wrong. They truly can’t see the forest for the trees.

hopeful on October 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Superb reading

Schadenfreude on October 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

What’s a “newspaper?”

glockomatic on October 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Most interesting is that Obama gets any endorsements at all. This doubling down of failure says a great deal about our news media and what they really stand for. No sacrifice for leftism is too great.

pat on October 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Shouldn’t be surprised about the Salt Lake Trib. It endorsed Obama in 2008 and is the lib paper there. SLC has had some really bad Dem mayors as well.

bluealice on October 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I wonder who the New York Times will endorse? I’m at the edge of my seat.

Do I need the sarc tag?

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on October 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Greg Mitchell is far from an unbiased writer. He is hard, hard left. When he was editor or E&P a trade publication covering both the business and editorial side of newspapers, he interjected his personal political beliefs into his columns. He presided over E&P’s demise. Others rescued it after it shut down, but he did not return to the publication.

Corky Boyd on October 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Akin to the Horse and Buggy lobby support.

Odie1941 on October 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Yea, these things mean less, every election. As we move away from print & gather our news online, the paper editions and their online versions are just seen as the same biased BS that restricted info from everyone in the past, in order to fit their agenda! No one trusts these Lib hacks anymore & with good reason. they are as specific an example of why the Republicans need to start treating them as the Enemy. Here’s the concept for taking on the Obama Enemy media & Winning: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM

This just in: Canine Cuisine endorses SCOAMF!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on October 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I predict one of the major newspapers that has traditionally supported the Democratic candidate, will endorse neither. That will be essentially a vote against Obama.

Corky Boyd on October 20, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I can’t even remember the last time I bought a newspaper or a magazine. I will admit to reading the headlines when I have to wait in line at the supermarket.

CoffeeLover on October 20, 2012 at 1:17 PM

There was a time, of course, when newspapers were far more explicitly partisan than they are today, not just in their editorials but also in their news coverage.

Really? More partisan in reporting news than today? Maybe as biased, but more biased? Really? Maybe for Upper Slobovia, IN, but the NYT, LAT, Denver Post? I don’t see how that is possible

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I’m taking the environmental approach—save a tree, don’t buy a newspaper.

Rovin on October 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Would you take political advice from some-one selling adverts?

Well then …

OldEnglish on October 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I suppose I find it interesting when a fairly liberal periodical flips an endorsement to a Republican.

Otherwise, meh.

hawkdriver on October 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

No.

ladyingray on October 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Has anyone ever paid any attention to what a self-selecting group inside a newspaper thinks?

Outside of the Left, I mean, they are all about self-selecting groups pontificating.

This sort of thing matters just as much as ‘celebrity endorsements’ do, which is nothing.

Of course if might help if I actually read newspapers, but then I held this opinion of them when I actually did read them… they lost me as a reader a couple of decades back. They had their chance to actually report information, report facts, and not create ‘stories’. Storytellers tell stories, I expect reporters to give facts, give them up-front and to not interject personal nor have editorial opinion interjected into them. I don’t want ‘stories’ but factual information. Opinion I can get freely from my barber, the checkout person, or stopping random people on the sidewalk…

ajacksonian on October 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM

In the case of liberal outlets endorsing Romney I think it’s noteworthy. For example, the NY Observer’s endorsement.

Urban Infidel on October 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Having been one of those “self-appointed experts”–actually somebody else appointed me–on newspaper editorial boards, I pretty much agree with you, Jazz, particularly your response to Greg Mitchell. Newspapers tend to reflect the general politics of their city which is liberal. My first newspaper was in a fairly conservative city so they fancied themselves center right. They endorsed and every election year we had a parade of politicians, office holders, and VIPs come through to grovel for our endorsement and otherwise stroke our egos. We’d take an office poll and the Executive Editor would stick his finger in the wind and we’d endorse who he thought would win. I lasted a year there and then went to a paper that didn’t endorse anybody.

cartooner on October 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM

They’re worthless. The two biggest newspapers in Kentucky ALWAYS endorse the Democrat for President, and he never carries the state.

rockmom on October 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Newspaper endorsements. Should you care?

…knowing the bias of the source 95% of the time?
…NOT ONE FLUKING BIT!

KOOLAID2 on October 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM

It can be an indication of which way the wind is blowing. If there are several papers who previously endorsed Obama and are now endorsing Romney then that is a good sign.

Wigglesworth on October 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM

BTW – 1st!

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on October 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

This comment is contrary to your nom, not that anyone cares who’s first :)

Schadenfreude on October 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Many senior citizens still read the papers.

Senior citizens vote well above the demographic average.

Do the endorsements sway them? They are exposed to them, and like any other ad exposure, it has some influence.

Rebar on October 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I think it is interesting when a paper or two falls out of line but only in the way I would look at someone on the street with purple and lemon yellow dyed hair. Just a curiosity.

Cindy Munford on October 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Along side the ancient tradition of endorsements is the tradition of backing one minor unknown candidate from the opposition in order to show you put some thought into the selection. The New York Times for example, never endorses the straight Dem ticket. After all, it has its reputation to consider, such as it is. So every election one minor Republican from up-state New York running for the garbage commissioner gets the coveted NYT endorsement. Of course, everyone know that it was just for show and they’d just as soon have him lose.

Fred 2 on October 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Newspapers would cease to exist if government workers could read news on line with their feet on the desk.

Wade on October 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

BuzzFeedAndrew: Gallup today unchanged: Romney 51% – Obama 45% with LV.

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I think it is interesting when a paper or two falls out of line but only in the way I would look at someone on the street with purple and lemon yellow dyed hair. Just a curiosity.

Cindy Munford on October 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Ooooh, so you don’t like people with purple and lemon yellow dyed hair?

Rethuglican

/

hawkdriver on October 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Newspapers?

Are you serious?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha ALOLALOLOLOLOLOOOLOL. Bwhwhahahwahahahaaha.

mmmmm, no.

PappyD61 on October 20, 2012 at 1:45 PM

In the case of liberal outlets endorsing Romney I think it’s noteworthy. For example, the NY Observer’s endorsement.

Urban Infidel on October 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Romney’s actually going to get the endorsement of most of the New York City-based newspapers — along with Murdoch’s Post and Wall Street Journal, he’s also going to win the Daily News’ endorsement, based on owner Mort Zuckerman’s tirades against the Obama Administration over the past two years (of course, what the editorial wing thinks and the newsroom does tend to be more walled-off here than at the New York Times, where ideology has come to drive Page 1 story selections. The WSJ and the Daily News’ reporters and editors lean left, but they don’t control the op-ed page; the Times has fallen because there’s no longer any firewall between the op-ed and the news sides of the paper).

jon1979 on October 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

The New York Times for example, never endorses the straight Dem ticket. After all, it has its reputation to consider, such as it is.

Fred 2 on October 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I suppose you are right. Even Xaviera Hollander did not consider herself to be a run of the mill street walker. The NYT considers itself to be a higher class of paid escort to the DNC

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I’m waiting to see what the space aliens surveyed by the Weekly World News have to say.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on October 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

In Thursday’s debate between Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican Linda McMahon in the race for Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seat, Murphy said in response to a direct question that he thought that life begins at birth.

…..did anyone ask him if he was a DARWINIST Progressive?

oh, wait. Obvious. nevermind.

PappyD61 on October 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

……….and I bet Murphy will be getting the endorsement from CT’s newspapers.

PappyD61 on October 20, 2012 at 1:52 PM

BuzzFeedAndrew: Gallup today unchanged: Romney 51% – Obama 45% with LV.

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

GumbyandPokie hardest hit.

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:52 PM

And, now, Clinton plays the “Americans don’t deserve Barack Obama” card:

Bill Clinton: Obama would win in landslide if Americans weren’t so ‘impatient’ for economy to be ‘hunky-dory again.’ ow.ly/eD7gU

“See, my fellow Americans, you are TOO impatient. You thought Obama was supposed to be working on lowering the unemployment and getting the economy moving. El wrongo! He was 100% correct in pushing through Obamacare against your will during his first 2 years. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA!

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM

hawkdriver on October 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

LOL! I can’t be judgmental about stuff like that, the youngest Boy Wonder’s girlfriend has been known to sport a hot pink bob. Oddly enough, she’s so cute can she can carry it off.

Cindy Munford on October 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM

The Honey Badger is funny.

SparkPlug on October 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA!“

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Oh my. We are not worthy. How shortsided of us.

I like this view of panic and desperation on the other side.

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM

There was a time, of course, when newspapers were far more explicitly partisan than they are today, not just in their editorials but also in their news coverage.

Really? More partisan in reporting news than today? Maybe as biased, but more biased? Really? Maybe for Upper Slobovia, IN, but the NYT, LAT, Denver Post? I don’t see how that is possible

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM

This my friend is known as propaganda, or as George Orwell called it, Newspeak. It is a straight up lie whose sole purpose is to deceive people into thinking that the Media has always been the way it is now, in other words, that they have not become malfeasant and criminally corrupt.

SWalker on October 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Greg Mitchell is far from an unbiased writer. He is hard, hard left. When he was editor or E&P a trade publication covering both the business and editorial side of newspapers, he interjected his personal political beliefs into his columns. He presided over E&P’s demise. Others rescued it after it shut down, but he did not return to the publication.

Corky Boyd on October 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yup, NewsBusters used to bust him regularly for his bias. He was and still is one of the original BDS-ers.

Del Dolemonte on October 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Newspaper endorsements. Should you care?

If I were concerned about purchasing American products that supported real American ideals, I would cancel my subscription[s] to any rag that supported the Commie-in-chief. Other than that, no.

DannoJyd on October 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Unfortunately in this day and age more people probably take notice of who Honey Boo Boo endorses than newspapers.

RADIOONE on October 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I don’t know about the rest of the country, but The Cleveland Plain Dealer has been setting up salespersons at local gas stations in the Ohio suburbs. This once proud newspaper is losing readership by the hundreds. Soooo sad…..

angrymike on October 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

They are only important if they are endorsing Republican’s…other than that, they don’t matter to me…

right2bright on October 20, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I don’t know about the rest of the country, but The Cleveland Plain Dealer has been setting up salespersons at local gas stations in the Ohio suburbs.

angrymike on October 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Arizona Daily Red Star gives their paper to the homeless people to sell at intersections.

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I think they are like lawn signs. They indicate sentiment in the country. If a liberal newspaper thinks they will sound foolish recommending the President it tells you where even some liberals are at.

This may sound strange but I think it is an indicator of turnout for the democrats. People who lean democrat or are independents (in no poll is he winning independents) were trying to catch history for bragging rights in 2008. That is gone now. Now you have to justify all the failures around you with the fact you voted for it. It may be another strange leap but the fans for a winning football team love to display their colors. The fans for a loser have only their hardcore base. It isn’t hip. Voting for Obama now is to take a chance on failure with no safety net you didn’t know better and like the newspapers that is going to affect the vote for Obama.

Conan on October 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

The Denver Post is pretty much the super sized version of the Boulder Daily Camera…other than Harsanyi, not worthy of even fish wrap.

hillsoftx on October 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

There was a time, of course, when newspapers were far more explicitly partisan than they are today, not just in their editorials but also in their news coverage.

Really? More partisan in reporting news than today? Maybe as biased, but more biased? Really? Maybe for Upper Slobovia, IN, but the NYT, LAT, Denver Post? I don’t see how that is possible

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM

The key word here is “explicitly”. While the newspapers today are just as partisan, and sometimes more so, newspapers in the past often had an official, stated party affiliation. Sometimes it was even in the name, which carries over today, e. g. The Missouri Democrat. So the pretense of objectivity was not as strong, I guess.

RINO in Name Only on October 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Didn’t the MSM say something to the effect “The country doesn’t deserve Jimmy Carter” or “Jimmy Carter is too good for America” after Reagan beat him?

Speaking of Carter and Reagan:

How Carter Beat Reagan

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The Honey Badger on October 20, 2012

]

Honey badger don’t give a fvck.

Eww, what is that, a cobra?

Lanceman on October 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Sometimes it was even in the name, which carries over today, e. g. The Missouri Democrat.

RINO in Name Only on October 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Actually that one isn’t around today – but I’m pretty sure there are still some major ones with the party in their name – I just can’t remember which ones, because like most normal people, I don’t read newspapers.

RINO in Name Only on October 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Yes, endorsements from the press are the same as the media voting, in public.

It fly’s in the face of the supposed professional detachment the power of the press pretends to have.

Besides, somehow influencing the vote is awful and nasty if you support Republicans by any means but the opposite is true if you’re a liberally biased organization and just so happen to feed your bottom line by propagating the politburo party line, in the press.

Speakup on October 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I don’t know about the rest of the country, but The Cleveland Plain Dealer has been setting up salespersons at local gas stations in the Ohio suburbs.

angrymike on October 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Arizona Daily Red Star gives their paper to the homeless people to sell at intersections.

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

…when you want to ‘change the world’ and don’t want to tell or avoid the truth…who with more than 2 brain cells want to buy that product?
…those who don’t want the truth ain’t buying anyway!
…guess they’re fluked!

KOOLAID2 on October 20, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The key word here is “explicitly”.

RINO in Name Only on October 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

That might be the right way to read that statement. … as opposed to the current pretense that the papers have of being “objective” reporters while pushing their propaganda in the news as they write the stories and what they choose to write about.

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Despite the advent of radio and eventually broadcast television — newspaper subscriptions were all but obligatory for practically every household in America not so long ago. Now — it is just little more than a slowly dying family tradition to take on a newspaper subscription when baby bird leaves the nest to fend for itself. The interwebs has had much to do with that — but I firmly believe that vast swaths of people being fed up with and just plain sick & tired of the so-called nonpartisan media charade has inflicted the inevitably fatal blow.

There has always been partisan leanings in Newspapers to be sure — but nowadays it is just outright partisan hackery and blatant falsehoods permeating our newspapers and we’ve had enough of it. So — newspaper and news magazine subscriptions — cancelled forever.

None of us can even count on any circulation Newspaper on any given day to just tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the nonpartisan truth. We haven’t been able to do that for a very long time.

Just why the hell should we or would we ever pay attention to their political endorsements?

We shouldn’t — ever. That is — unless your lockstep with the total & complete strangers foisting their personal agendas on the public when writing and publishing your newspaper — then it’s all good.

FlatFoot on October 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Didn’t the MSM say something to the effect “The country doesn’t deserve Jimmy Carter” or “Jimmy Carter is too good for America” after Reagan beat him?

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I don’t remember that, but then I was too busy celebrating the fact that Carter was defeated and Reagan was president, I may have missed the sour grapes from the other side.

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Many senior citizens still read the papers.
Senior citizens vote well above the demographic average.

Do the endorsements sway them? They are exposed to them, and like any other ad exposure, it has some influence.

Rebar on October 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Seniors are the least to be swayed and most likely to have made a decision, based on recent events and life experience which carries a firm ideology.

Additionally, many seniors convert to government programs for the first time in their lives, namely SS benefits and Medicare.

That doesn’t leave a good taste in the incumbent’s mouth.

Odie1941 on October 20, 2012 at 2:52 PM

How Carter Beat Reagan

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Great article there by the way. You put some effort into that research. It’s good to have all those facts summarized in one place.

AZfederalist on October 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

O/T
Has it been confirmed whether Castro is dead or alive………..

angrymike on October 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Comparing 2008 and 2012 newspaper endorsements:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012_newspaper_endorsements.php

(Apologies if someone already linked this.)

acasilaco on October 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Newspaper endorsements. Should you care?

No, but I would really enjoy seeing the Chicago Tribune endorse Romney.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM

There was a time, of course, when newspapers were far more explicitly partisan than they are today, not just in their editorials but also in their news coverage.

Yes they were BUT they had their partisanship in their name. They did not pretend they were unbiased. Much more honest then they are today, it matters not that we see right thru their unbiased claims the continue to make those claims!

IowaWoman on October 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Newspaper endorsements.

For the committed passive, willfully ignorant — yet at least minimally literate — low information voter.

Kenosha Kid on October 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

What’s a “newspaper?”

glockomatic on October 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

What you put on the bottom of your birdcage or potty train your puppy with.

kim roy on October 20, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Are there really people out there who are so devoid of critical judgement that they base their voting decisions on who some group of anonymous people decided to endorse?

Yes. They are called “liberals”.

kim roy on October 20, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I get The Tampa Bay Times (good sports page, comics and puzzles) and The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is a good paper with reliable coverage. However…
The Tampa Bay Times (nee St Petersburg Times) will occasionally endorse a Republican that’s running for State Senate or lower, but I’ve never seen them endorse anyone higher that wasn’t a Democrat. But it’s much worse than endorsements. The coverage on subjects like Fast & Furious or the Libya debacle are terrible. They cherry pick the parts of the story that don’t look bad for you know who, so they then can say they covered the story. They also created the disastrous PolitiFact. I read it but can’t imagine anyone not being able to see right through it.

Know your enemy.

wb-33777 on October 20, 2012 at 4:31 PM

as did the Salt Lake City Tribune (!)

Jazz – while the SLTrib is not as far left as the Minneapolis Red Star, it is still fairly left of center. They will endorse Orrin Hatch to be sure, but I can about guarantee that they will endorse the Democratic candidate for SL County Mayor, Governor, every Democrat running for Congress (except maybe Rob Bishop’s opponent) but that’s about it…..

LL

Lady Logician on October 20, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I predict one of the major newspapers that has traditionally supported the Democratic candidate, will endorse neither. That will be essentially a vote against Obama.

Corky Boyd on October 20, 2012 at 1:16 PM

The Cleveland Plain Dealer actually did that in 2004, when the paper’s then-publisher – who supported President Bush – overruled the editorial board’s vote to endorse John Kerry.

After heavy lobbying by the editorial page director, a stalemate was called. And what followed was a jumbled mess of an editorial that pulled the “pox on both houses” card:

“After nearly four years spent watching George W. Bush as president, and after a year of watching Sen. John Kerry campaign to oust him, we have decided not to add one more potentially polarizing voice to a poisoned debate. We make no endorsement for president this year. Our readers certainly should not take that as an invitation to walk away from the civic responsibility of casting a ballot for the man they believe best suited to facing the challenges of the Oval Office.”

I would not be shocked if they tried to duck responsibility again.

What will be worth watching is how they endorse Sherrod Brown. It’s not even a question mark, precisely because he’s married to their star columnist (and the only Pulitzer winner the paper’s had over the past 55 years). Not surprisingly, the PD has obviously acted as a surrogate arm to Brown’s re-election campaign (and the fact his lives in the suburb of Avon makes me, a lifelong Avonite, highly embarrassed).

Myron Falwell on October 20, 2012 at 6:46 PM

I don’t know about the rest of the country, but The Cleveland Plain Dealer has been setting up salespersons at local gas stations in the Ohio suburbs. This once proud newspaper is losing readership by the hundreds. Soooo sad…..

angrymike on October 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

They need all the help they can get. Sometime next year, The Plain Dealer will be converted to an internet-heavy triweekly just like all the others in the Newhouse/Advance chain.

Their most recent publisher bailed on them a few weeks back, obviously seeing the writing on the wall.

Myron Falwell on October 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Lady Logician on October 20, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Interesting historical tidbit: The Salt Lake Tribune was once the newspaper organ of vitriolic anti-Mormons, purchased for that specific purpose. Of course, it’s not nearly as bad now, and probably has plenty of LDS people working for it, but it’s the only Utah paper I know of (not that I’m an expert) where you can find anti-Mormon bias in the “news” section with any regularity (not every day, but it’s there many days when the LDS Church is in the news for whatever reason).

CanofSand on October 20, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Yes they were BUT they had their partisanship in their name. They did not pretend they were unbiased. Much more honest then they are today, it matters not that we see right thru their unbiased claims the continue to make those claims!

IowaWoman on October 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I was going to say this, but you beat me to it. Actually, it would be better if the newspapers (and the networks) just admitted their bias straight up and be done with it, but I know that’ll never happen … willingly … on their part.

For these MSM types, I can’t imagine being so willfully ignorant or living so firmly inside whatever bubble they are living in that a very small inkling of reality wouldn’t be able to seep in occasionally. That level of denial has always astonished me, but it’s an endless source of entertainment to listen to them act all hurt because their bias is being rejected. It’s not my problem, MSM, that you just don’t get it.

PatriotGal2257 on October 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I no longer get the Denver Post because of their liberal slant. No surprise yesteday that they endorsed Obama. As far as I’m concerned these papers depend on people who have any disposable income. When they endorse Obama they are just hastening their demise. I say good riddance.

COgirl on October 20, 2012 at 7:40 PM

O/T
Has it been confirmed whether Castro is dead or alive………..

angrymike on October 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Yes.

IamDA on October 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM

What will be worth watching is how they endorse Sherrod Brown. It’s not even a question mark, precisely because he’s married to their star columnist (and the only Pulitzer winner the paper’s had over the past 55 years). Not surprisingly, the PD has obviously acted as a surrogate arm to Brown’s re-election campaign (and the fact his lives in the suburb of Avon makes me, a lifelong Avonite, highly embarrassed).

Hell, they already kissed Sherrod’s brass ring. (You don’t need to click the link. Seriously.)

It goes to show you how little I care about the Plain Dealer to begin with. Outside of the sports page and some of the comics, of course.

I also forgot the untold story behind Connie’s temporary ‘resignation’ from the PD involved her filming Mandel at a Tea Party event… at All-Pro Stadium, in Avon, Ohio. Which is, again, where she and Sherrod (regrettably) reside at.

Myron Falwell on October 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

O/T
Has it been confirmed whether Castro is dead or alive………..

angrymike on October 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Yes.

IamDA on October 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM

And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Myron Falwell on October 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Any newspaper editorial board who would make a case (or even have a case) for the re-election of Barack Obama immediately forfeits their credibility and a portion of their subscribers. Our current president so does NOT deserve re-election. It’s patently obvious. Stupidest business model ever – trying to persuade customers to vote for O who is already well demonstrated to have been a mistake in the first place.

Media outlets remaining true to O distinguish themselves as sources to be ignored in the future. Such clarity is a beautiful thing and O has at least done us this service.

exdeadhead on October 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM