Full Version: Newspaper Endorsments
It’s that point in the election where the candidates are piling up newspaper endorsements. It's an age old tradition.
According to an Editor & Publisher article today Kerry has picked up a total of 48 major papers with a daily circulation of 8,935, 198. Bush has the support of 34 papers with a daily circulation of 4,776,213.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000673610
I was not surprised when my hometown paper the Fort Worth Star Telegram endorsed Bush. What did surprise me was the rather lame reason for doing so.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/9936250.htm?1c
Huh? The FWST endorsed Bush in 2000 based on his performance as Governor of Texas. That Bush has not materialized in the last four years, so the paper, despite some misgivings, is again endorsing the Bush they thought they endorsed four years ago. Either I’m missing something or there’s something wrong with the picture. I can't speak for the other papers, but I would suggest the FWST is giving Bush yet another pass--refusing to hold him accountable for his four years as President.
QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
2. Do they influence you personally?
According to an Editor & Publisher article today Kerry has picked up a total of 48 major papers with a daily circulation of 8,935, 198. Bush has the support of 34 papers with a daily circulation of 4,776,213.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000673610
I was not surprised when my hometown paper the Fort Worth Star Telegram endorsed Bush. What did surprise me was the rather lame reason for doing so.
QUOTE
When George W. Bush ran for president four years ago, this newspaper's recommendation that he be elected was based in part on the Republican's seven-year performance in Texas.
As governor of Texas (and with the help of Democrats in positions of power in the state's House and Senate), Bush demonstrated an admirable ability to build consensus across party lines in Austin.
<snip>
In a nation divided almost 50-50 politically, with a Senate roughly the same and with the Republican Party in narrow control in the House, the cooperative atmosphere that Bush fostered in Texas is in greater demand than ever.
We remain convinced that Bush can lead that healing. We've seen him do it. And that is why we are recommending that he be re-elected president of the United States.
<snip>
If he is re-elected, we expect to see and hear a vocal Bush forcefully proposing a clean policy for fiscal restraint coupled with compassion -- and using his veto power to enforce it.
In short, we expect to see the George W. Bush whom we sent to Washington in the first place.
As governor of Texas (and with the help of Democrats in positions of power in the state's House and Senate), Bush demonstrated an admirable ability to build consensus across party lines in Austin.
<snip>
In a nation divided almost 50-50 politically, with a Senate roughly the same and with the Republican Party in narrow control in the House, the cooperative atmosphere that Bush fostered in Texas is in greater demand than ever.
We remain convinced that Bush can lead that healing. We've seen him do it. And that is why we are recommending that he be re-elected president of the United States.
<snip>
If he is re-elected, we expect to see and hear a vocal Bush forcefully proposing a clean policy for fiscal restraint coupled with compassion -- and using his veto power to enforce it.
In short, we expect to see the George W. Bush whom we sent to Washington in the first place.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/9936250.htm?1c
Huh? The FWST endorsed Bush in 2000 based on his performance as Governor of Texas. That Bush has not materialized in the last four years, so the paper, despite some misgivings, is again endorsing the Bush they thought they endorsed four years ago. Either I’m missing something or there’s something wrong with the picture. I can't speak for the other papers, but I would suggest the FWST is giving Bush yet another pass--refusing to hold him accountable for his four years as President.QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
2. Do they influence you personally?
Interesting topic. 
1. Here's a good article which addresses this very question. The title of the article pretty much gives you your answer:
What's the Point?
2. My situation is a little unusual. My local newspaper, like many, is the result of a merger of two newspapers. Hence, the Chattanooga Times Free Press has two editorial boards, one of which supports Kerry and one of which supports Bush. The only effect of this double endorsement has been to confirm my own opinions.
I suppose if, say, The National Review were to support Kerry, or if Mother Jones were to support Bush, I might sit up and take notice. Lacking such a shocking endorsement, the opinions of editorialists have little influence.
1. Here's a good article which addresses this very question. The title of the article pretty much gives you your answer:
What's the Point?
QUOTE
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote about newspaper endorsements in her 2000 book, "Everything You Think You Know About Politics and Why You're Wrong."
"The direct effect of editorials does not appear to be significant enough to find," Jamieson said in an interview. "The effect of newspaper endorsements is largely created through advertising about them that is sponsored by the candidate."
Even then, Jamieson and others interviewed for this article agree, the impact of endorsements on national or even regional elections – contests in which candidates are well-known among voters – is negligible.
"Many Americans in 1996 had no idea which presidential candidate their newspaper supported; many more had the wrong idea," Jamieson writes of an Annenberg study of that year's election. "To judge from the responses, many people were guessing." The findings included:
• Among readers of papers that had endorsed President Clinton, "three-quarters reported that fact; 11 percent reported their paper had endorsed Bob Dole; and 14 percent reported their paper had endorsed no one."
• Among readers of papers that had endorsed Dole, "less than one-half" knew that, while one-third thought their paper had endorsed Clinton.
• Of those who knew their newspaper's endorsement, 1 percent said it played a "great deal" and 10 percent said it played "somewhat" of a role in their voting decision. "Of that 11 percent, about a quarter had the endorsement wrong."
More recently, a Pew Center for the People & the Press study released in January, which measured media influences on voters during the 2004 presidential campaign, concluded that "newspaper endorsements are also less influential than four years ago, and dissuade as many Americans as they persuade."
"The direct effect of editorials does not appear to be significant enough to find," Jamieson said in an interview. "The effect of newspaper endorsements is largely created through advertising about them that is sponsored by the candidate."
Even then, Jamieson and others interviewed for this article agree, the impact of endorsements on national or even regional elections – contests in which candidates are well-known among voters – is negligible.
"Many Americans in 1996 had no idea which presidential candidate their newspaper supported; many more had the wrong idea," Jamieson writes of an Annenberg study of that year's election. "To judge from the responses, many people were guessing." The findings included:
• Among readers of papers that had endorsed President Clinton, "three-quarters reported that fact; 11 percent reported their paper had endorsed Bob Dole; and 14 percent reported their paper had endorsed no one."
• Among readers of papers that had endorsed Dole, "less than one-half" knew that, while one-third thought their paper had endorsed Clinton.
• Of those who knew their newspaper's endorsement, 1 percent said it played a "great deal" and 10 percent said it played "somewhat" of a role in their voting decision. "Of that 11 percent, about a quarter had the endorsement wrong."
More recently, a Pew Center for the People & the Press study released in January, which measured media influences on voters during the 2004 presidential campaign, concluded that "newspaper endorsements are also less influential than four years ago, and dissuade as many Americans as they persuade."
2. My situation is a little unusual. My local newspaper, like many, is the result of a merger of two newspapers. Hence, the Chattanooga Times Free Press has two editorial boards, one of which supports Kerry and one of which supports Bush. The only effect of this double endorsement has been to confirm my own opinions.
I suppose if, say, The National Review were to support Kerry, or if Mother Jones were to support Bush, I might sit up and take notice. Lacking such a shocking endorsement, the opinions of editorialists have little influence.
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
I think that they probably have in past elections, because it is basically political advertising for a given candidate. If you are a voter that hasn't really educated yourself on the candidates or are undecided, sometimes an endorsement from your local paper can convince you (I know several people that fall into these categories).
As for this election, it is difficult to say how much impact it will have. First, I think that everyone is in general more familiar with the candidates and the issues, even voters who have historically been apathetic about the process. Second, I think there are far fewer undecided voters at this stage of the game than in previous elections and there really have been for weeks.
What is interesting are the patterns emerging in the newspaper endorsements for this year. Take a look at the 2004 Media Endorsements from the dkosopedia (and if you notice something innaccurate here you can sign up for edit privledges). You'll notice a few things:
1. Kerry has far more endorsements than Bush does right now.
2. Kerry has picked up several endorsements from papers which endorsed Bush in 2000, including his hometown paper.
3. There are also several papers which endorsed Bush in 2000 and have declined to endorse anyone this election.
4. The papers endorsing Kerry reach far more subscribers.
Now this may or may not mean anything just like all of the polls out there, but I'll have to say that it is certainly an interesting trend and will be worth examining during the election postmortem.
2. Do they influence you personally?
I have never really been an "undecided" voter, and since I turned 18 I have taken presidential elections seriously. I used to not really care about state and local elections, but recently I have started becoming involved in those as well. So I don't really think I fall into the class of voters that can be influenced by a paper. I haven't ever found myself in a situation where two weeks out from the election I don't know who to vote for - in fact I have already cast my vote, mailed it in yesterday.
I think that they probably have in past elections, because it is basically political advertising for a given candidate. If you are a voter that hasn't really educated yourself on the candidates or are undecided, sometimes an endorsement from your local paper can convince you (I know several people that fall into these categories).
As for this election, it is difficult to say how much impact it will have. First, I think that everyone is in general more familiar with the candidates and the issues, even voters who have historically been apathetic about the process. Second, I think there are far fewer undecided voters at this stage of the game than in previous elections and there really have been for weeks.
What is interesting are the patterns emerging in the newspaper endorsements for this year. Take a look at the 2004 Media Endorsements from the dkosopedia (and if you notice something innaccurate here you can sign up for edit privledges). You'll notice a few things:
1. Kerry has far more endorsements than Bush does right now.
2. Kerry has picked up several endorsements from papers which endorsed Bush in 2000, including his hometown paper.
3. There are also several papers which endorsed Bush in 2000 and have declined to endorse anyone this election.
4. The papers endorsing Kerry reach far more subscribers.
Now this may or may not mean anything just like all of the polls out there, but I'll have to say that it is certainly an interesting trend and will be worth examining during the election postmortem.
2. Do they influence you personally?
I have never really been an "undecided" voter, and since I turned 18 I have taken presidential elections seriously. I used to not really care about state and local elections, but recently I have started becoming involved in those as well. So I don't really think I fall into the class of voters that can be influenced by a paper. I haven't ever found myself in a situation where two weeks out from the election I don't know who to vote for - in fact I have already cast my vote, mailed it in yesterday.
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
I don't think so. There was a time when I think they did, but with the advent of so many alternative media out there, that time is long past. In fact, I find newspaper coverage of the entire election process to be bordering on laughable...you seldom see any indepth analysis of issues and politician's stance on them anymore. Which is frustrating, because I think that this is exactly the type of thing that newspapers could do better than other media, simply because the attention span on the others is inherently much shorter. (But I guess that's just me..it's clear that all the newspapers out there have decided differently, so there must be a valid reason).
2. Do they influence you personally?
Endorsements...no. Analysis? yes. Papers have no business endorsing anyone for anything...doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish. However, showing a detailed analysis of each sides stances on various issues, and the likely effect those would have, could easily sway my opinion...as long as I could feel confident that such information was indeed provided objectively.
I don't think so. There was a time when I think they did, but with the advent of so many alternative media out there, that time is long past. In fact, I find newspaper coverage of the entire election process to be bordering on laughable...you seldom see any indepth analysis of issues and politician's stance on them anymore. Which is frustrating, because I think that this is exactly the type of thing that newspapers could do better than other media, simply because the attention span on the others is inherently much shorter. (But I guess that's just me..it's clear that all the newspapers out there have decided differently, so there must be a valid reason).
2. Do they influence you personally?
Endorsements...no. Analysis? yes. Papers have no business endorsing anyone for anything...doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish. However, showing a detailed analysis of each sides stances on various issues, and the likely effect those would have, could easily sway my opinion...as long as I could feel confident that such information was indeed provided objectively.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 19 2004, 11:59 AM)
Endorsements...no. Analysis? yes. Papers have no business endorsing anyone for anything...doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish. However, showing a detailed analysis of each sides stances on various issues, and the likely effect those would have, could easily sway my opinion...as long as I could feel confident that such information was indeed provided objectively.
Hobbes,
This is an excellent point. The Washington Post's ( and some other papers) policy is not to endorse candiates for the very reason [paraphrased] you've given, "doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish."
BTW:
There were thirteen letters in this morning's Fort Worth Star Telegram all of them taking exception to the backhanded way the paper went about endorsing Bush. I waiting to see how the Bush crowd defends such an insipid editorial endorsment.
I don't know how long this link will be valid.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/lo.../9957394.htm?1c
QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
I think they have some influence with a small minority of voters. Undecided voters might look at endorsements as one factor in making a decision, though far more likely to look at the analysis behind it. I read the endorsement of the Charlotte Observer on Sunday and thought it was a pretty lucid explanation of Bush's accomplishments and weaknesses and why they thought a change was needed. I do think its a very fair question whether journalism outlets should be endorsing anyone.
2. Do they influence you personally?
Not really. Maybe for smaller races where I have less information on a candidate I would consider their input as one source of information. But not for major elections.
Doc
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
I think they have some influence with a small minority of voters. Undecided voters might look at endorsements as one factor in making a decision, though far more likely to look at the analysis behind it. I read the endorsement of the Charlotte Observer on Sunday and thought it was a pretty lucid explanation of Bush's accomplishments and weaknesses and why they thought a change was needed. I do think its a very fair question whether journalism outlets should be endorsing anyone.
2. Do they influence you personally?
Not really. Maybe for smaller races where I have less information on a candidate I would consider their input as one source of information. But not for major elections.
Doc
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 19 2004, 08:05 PM)
There were thirteen letters in this morning's Fort Worth Star Telegram all of them taking exception to the backhanded way the paper went about endorsing Bush. I waiting to see how the Bush crowd defends such an insipid editorial endorsment.
I think this one may be the most enlightening:
'Thanks for your endorsement of Sen. John Kerry.
No, you didn't have the courage to endorse him directly. And, no, you didn't have the nerve to deny Bush your endorsement. But you gave no reasons to vote for Bush, and you filled the editorial with compelling reasons not to do so.
Rita M. Vinson, Fort Worth'
I laways get the impression that newspapers follow readers, not vice-versa. I suspect that the Star Telegram endorsed Bush because it had to, while actually preferring Kerry, and possibly trying to even push a pro-Kerry line.
Here in the UK in 1997 the Sun, a right-wing tabloid and the country's biggest-selling paper at about 4 million last time I checked, switched before the election to support Blair. When Blair was elected the headline read: 'It's the Sun wot won it!' Except it wasn't. In fact it was a switch that the paper felt it had to make because its readers were turning away from the Conservatives in droves. I think that the line that papers take in general, and all the bias, both explicit and hidden, has a huge effect on the way that people view politics, but endorsements don't really have much effect. Of course, in an election like yours now, that might be enough, but normally I would say there were many more important factors.
Editor & Publisher has revised their original analysis and this is the brand new article.
There are some interesting calls in here:
Also, to bring it up again - if anyone cares to follow the endorsement trail, circulations, see who endorsed who in 2000 you should check out the 2004 Media Endorsements on Dkosopedia.
QUOTE
When the smoke clears next Wednesday (if it does) will anyone say that newspaper endorsements helped decide the next president?
Yes, everyone knows newspaper picks in presidential races don't count for very much, but they do mean something. Surveys by E&P and others in previous years showed that roughly 5 to 10% of voters (or more) felt that editorials had some influence when they cast their ballots. In a battleground state that's not insignificant.
Yes, everyone knows newspaper picks in presidential races don't count for very much, but they do mean something. Surveys by E&P and others in previous years showed that roughly 5 to 10% of voters (or more) felt that editorials had some influence when they cast their ballots. In a battleground state that's not insignificant.
There are some interesting calls in here:
QUOTE
FLORIDA: Bush is in big trouble here, at least if newspapers have any sway. Every single large paper has gone for Kerry, with the Orlando and Bradenton papers abandoning Bush and The Tampa Tribune (formerly for Dubya) sitting it out. This is how bad it is for the president: As far we know, his two biggest Sunshine State catches so far are the Ocala Star-Banner and The Ledger in Lakeland. So let's give this state to Kerry. In fact, if Bush pulls this one out, E&P promises never to give any weight to editorial endorsements in the future.
PENNSYLVANIA: More bad news for Bush. As expected, the two Philly dailies and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette backed Kerry, but The Morning Call in Allentown also switched to him, and the Scranton and Harrisburg papers, previously pro-Bush, declared neutrality. Bush did pick up switches in York and Easton, but we have to give this state to Kerry.
OREGON: Did anyone notice that this state went from tossup to leaning left (according to the pundits) right after The Oregonian switched from Bush to Kerry?
WASHINGTON: Ditto here, when The Seattle Times jumped to Kerry. The Dem now has both Seattle papers, plus Tacoma's.
(more inside)
PENNSYLVANIA: More bad news for Bush. As expected, the two Philly dailies and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette backed Kerry, but The Morning Call in Allentown also switched to him, and the Scranton and Harrisburg papers, previously pro-Bush, declared neutrality. Bush did pick up switches in York and Easton, but we have to give this state to Kerry.
OREGON: Did anyone notice that this state went from tossup to leaning left (according to the pundits) right after The Oregonian switched from Bush to Kerry?
WASHINGTON: Ditto here, when The Seattle Times jumped to Kerry. The Dem now has both Seattle papers, plus Tacoma's.
(more inside)
Also, to bring it up again - if anyone cares to follow the endorsement trail, circulations, see who endorsed who in 2000 you should check out the 2004 Media Endorsements on Dkosopedia.
This endorsement is not from a newspaper, but it is pretty significant in its own right:
New Yorker magazine breaks with tradition, endorses Kerry
Before someone dismisses this out of hand because it is a New York publication, please bear in mind that this is a magazine that has purposely been non-partisan in the past. Some people who wouldn't otherwise will sit up and take notice of this endorsement.
New Yorker magazine breaks with tradition, endorses Kerry
QUOTE
NEW YORK (AFP) - For the first time in its 80-year history, the venerable New Yorker magazine endorsed a presidential candidate, urging readers Monday to vote for Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) in next week's election.
"He is plainly the better choice," the weekly said in a lengthy editorial that excoriated the record of President George W. Bush (news - web sites) on everything from health and the environment to his handling of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).
"He is plainly the better choice," the weekly said in a lengthy editorial that excoriated the record of President George W. Bush (news - web sites) on everything from health and the environment to his handling of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).
Before someone dismisses this out of hand because it is a New York publication, please bear in mind that this is a magazine that has purposely been non-partisan in the past. Some people who wouldn't otherwise will sit up and take notice of this endorsement.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Oct 26 2004, 04:24 PM)
Editor & Publisher has revised their original analysis and this is the brand new article.
There are some interesting calls in here:
Also, to bring it up again - if anyone cares to follow the endorsement trail, circulations, see who endorsed who in 2000 you should check out the 2004 Media Endorsements on Dkosopedia.
QUOTE
When the smoke clears next Wednesday (if it does) will anyone say that newspaper endorsements helped decide the next president?
Yes, everyone knows newspaper picks in presidential races don't count for very much, but they do mean something. Surveys by E&P and others in previous years showed that roughly 5 to 10% of voters (or more) felt that editorials had some influence when they cast their ballots. In a battleground state that's not insignificant.
Yes, everyone knows newspaper picks in presidential races don't count for very much, but they do mean something. Surveys by E&P and others in previous years showed that roughly 5 to 10% of voters (or more) felt that editorials had some influence when they cast their ballots. In a battleground state that's not insignificant.
There are some interesting calls in here:
QUOTE
FLORIDA: Bush is in big trouble here, at least if newspapers have any sway. Every single large paper has gone for Kerry, with the Orlando and Bradenton papers abandoning Bush and The Tampa Tribune (formerly for Dubya) sitting it out. This is how bad it is for the president: As far we know, his two biggest Sunshine State catches so far are the Ocala Star-Banner and The Ledger in Lakeland. So let's give this state to Kerry. In fact, if Bush pulls this one out, E&P promises never to give any weight to editorial endorsements in the future.
PENNSYLVANIA: More bad news for Bush. As expected, the two Philly dailies and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette backed Kerry, but The Morning Call in Allentown also switched to him, and the Scranton and Harrisburg papers, previously pro-Bush, declared neutrality. Bush did pick up switches in York and Easton, but we have to give this state to Kerry.
OREGON: Did anyone notice that this state went from tossup to leaning left (according to the pundits) right after The Oregonian switched from Bush to Kerry?
WASHINGTON: Ditto here, when The Seattle Times jumped to Kerry. The Dem now has both Seattle papers, plus Tacoma's.
(more inside)
PENNSYLVANIA: More bad news for Bush. As expected, the two Philly dailies and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette backed Kerry, but The Morning Call in Allentown also switched to him, and the Scranton and Harrisburg papers, previously pro-Bush, declared neutrality. Bush did pick up switches in York and Easton, but we have to give this state to Kerry.
OREGON: Did anyone notice that this state went from tossup to leaning left (according to the pundits) right after The Oregonian switched from Bush to Kerry?
WASHINGTON: Ditto here, when The Seattle Times jumped to Kerry. The Dem now has both Seattle papers, plus Tacoma's.
(more inside)
Also, to bring it up again - if anyone cares to follow the endorsement trail, circulations, see who endorsed who in 2000 you should check out the 2004 Media Endorsements on Dkosopedia.
CJ, I lived for about 20 years in the Orlando area. I can tell you for a fact, that the Orlando Sentinel has endorsed the Republican candidate in every presidential election for the last forty years.
The fact that they are now endorsing Kerry has made more than a few folks sit up and take notice.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 19 2004, 12:59 PM)
2. Do they influence you personally?
Endorsements...no. Analysis? yes. Papers have no business endorsing anyone for anything...doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish
Endorsements...no. Analysis? yes. Papers have no business endorsing anyone for anything...doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish
Newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates, Hobbes? Does that mean they should abolish their opinion/editorial pages because they "violate the very principle of objectivity?"
Though the number of people who get their news from newspapers continues to dwindle, newspapers don't just provide information to create informed opinions; they shape them as well. Endorsements don't convince me one way or the other, but a well-written one can add insight and context. Voting is simple, but casting a informed vote is "hard work" to quote Dubya.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 27 2004, 09:38 AM)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 19 2004, 12:59 PM)
2. Do they influence you personally?
Endorsements...no. Analysis? yes. Papers have no business endorsing anyone for anything...doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish
Endorsements...no. Analysis? yes. Papers have no business endorsing anyone for anything...doing so violates the very principle of objectivity they should be striving to accomplish
Newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates, Hobbes? Does that mean they should abolish their opinion/editorial pages because they "violate the very principle of objectivity?"
Though the number of people who get their news from newspapers continues to dwindle, newspapers don't just provide information to create informed opinions; they shape them as well. Endorsements don't convince me one way or the other, but a well-written one can add insight and context. Voting is simple, but casting a informed vote is "hard work" to quote Dubya.
NT, I understand your point...where I imagine we will just agree to disagree is in the 'shaping of opinion'. I disagree that that should be a goal--present facts and let people form opinions on their own (however, I'm also sure the marketing dept. will say that's a sure way to drive sales into the ground). The more facts that are presented on both sides of the issue, the more credence I will give to the article. Any article that seems to only present one side of an issue is, for me, simply dismissed out-of-hand as one-sided, and therefore misleading and not to be given credence. Op-ed pieces are fine....what I see too much of (for me) is supposedly objective pieces taking an op-ed slant. As for endorsements in general, I have no problem with papers giving them...but how could you then trust that paper to not put that slant on any subsequent stories? To me, they become a less believable source of information---although I would much rather an endorsement be stated, rather than merely present behind the scenes. In fact...nothing gives credence to an article faster than "I normally support x, BUT .......
It seems we probably do agree on some middle ground here...if an endorsement goes through all the issues, explaining both sides of a position (ie, is the well written one you mention)--I have no problem with that. There should be enough information in such a piece to see if you, the reader, would come to the same conclusion...which is all that I ask.
Hi. I'm new to this board, so this is my first post here.
Just from my personal point of view, newspaper endorcements do nothing for me. If I support George Bush, and the New York Daily News (I'm formally from NYC) endorces John Kerry, that does not compel me to change my vote.
I take my opinions from my basic beliefs. Scandals also do nothing to change my mind. They're a part of being in office. Scandals always break out into the open, whether true or not. Whether the one holding office is a Democrat, or Republican.
What I pay attention to is; "what is candidate A going to do once elected into office?"
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 18 2004, 11:12 PM)
It’s that point in the election where the candidates are piling up newspaper endorsements. It's an age old tradition.
According to an Editor & Publisher article today Kerry has picked up a total of 48 major papers with a daily circulation of 8,935, 198. Bush has the support of 34 papers with a daily circulation of 4,776,213.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000673610
I was not surprised when my hometown paper the Fort Worth Star Telegram endorsed Bush. What did surprise me was the rather lame reason for doing so.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/9936250.htm?1c
Huh? The FWST endorsed Bush in 2000 based on his performance as Governor of Texas. That Bush has not materialized in the last four years, so the paper, despite some misgivings, is again endorsing the Bush they thought they endorsed four years ago. Either I’m missing something or there’s something wrong with the picture. I can't speak for the other papers, but I would suggest the FWST is giving Bush yet another pass--refusing to hold him accountable for his four years as President.
QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
2. Do they influence you personally?
According to an Editor & Publisher article today Kerry has picked up a total of 48 major papers with a daily circulation of 8,935, 198. Bush has the support of 34 papers with a daily circulation of 4,776,213.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000673610
I was not surprised when my hometown paper the Fort Worth Star Telegram endorsed Bush. What did surprise me was the rather lame reason for doing so.
QUOTE
When George W. Bush ran for president four years ago, this newspaper's recommendation that he be elected was based in part on the Republican's seven-year performance in Texas.
As governor of Texas (and with the help of Democrats in positions of power in the state's House and Senate), Bush demonstrated an admirable ability to build consensus across party lines in Austin.
<snip>
In a nation divided almost 50-50 politically, with a Senate roughly the same and with the Republican Party in narrow control in the House, the cooperative atmosphere that Bush fostered in Texas is in greater demand than ever.
We remain convinced that Bush can lead that healing. We've seen him do it. And that is why we are recommending that he be re-elected president of the United States.
<snip>
If he is re-elected, we expect to see and hear a vocal Bush forcefully proposing a clean policy for fiscal restraint coupled with compassion -- and using his veto power to enforce it.
In short, we expect to see the George W. Bush whom we sent to Washington in the first place.
As governor of Texas (and with the help of Democrats in positions of power in the state's House and Senate), Bush demonstrated an admirable ability to build consensus across party lines in Austin.
<snip>
In a nation divided almost 50-50 politically, with a Senate roughly the same and with the Republican Party in narrow control in the House, the cooperative atmosphere that Bush fostered in Texas is in greater demand than ever.
We remain convinced that Bush can lead that healing. We've seen him do it. And that is why we are recommending that he be re-elected president of the United States.
<snip>
If he is re-elected, we expect to see and hear a vocal Bush forcefully proposing a clean policy for fiscal restraint coupled with compassion -- and using his veto power to enforce it.
In short, we expect to see the George W. Bush whom we sent to Washington in the first place.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/9936250.htm?1c
Huh? The FWST endorsed Bush in 2000 based on his performance as Governor of Texas. That Bush has not materialized in the last four years, so the paper, despite some misgivings, is again endorsing the Bush they thought they endorsed four years ago. Either I’m missing something or there’s something wrong with the picture. I can't speak for the other papers, but I would suggest the FWST is giving Bush yet another pass--refusing to hold him accountable for his four years as President.QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
2. Do they influence you personally?
QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
2. Do they influence you personally?
[/quote]
1.)I honestly doubt that they are that influential in deciding the presidential election. Personally, if I'm not as aware of a local issue or caniddate, I usually use their official endorsement as a strong consideration. So I guess endorsements have more of an impact on me if it's in regards to a local election.
2.)My favorite paper, the Lincoln Journal-Star endorsed president Bush
, causing me to spill my espresso on my lap in shock and dismay. 
All the endorsement did was "influence" me to begin crafting a great letter to the editor taking them to the woodshed over such an action. 
1. Do newspaper endorsements impact presidential elections? If so why and how much.
2. Do they influence you personally?
[/quote]
1.)I honestly doubt that they are that influential in deciding the presidential election. Personally, if I'm not as aware of a local issue or caniddate, I usually use their official endorsement as a strong consideration. So I guess endorsements have more of an impact on me if it's in regards to a local election.
2.)My favorite paper, the Lincoln Journal-Star endorsed president Bush
, causing me to spill my espresso on my lap in shock and dismay. All the endorsement did was "influence" me to begin crafting a great letter to the editor taking them to the woodshed over such an action.
QUOTE
My favorite paper, the Lincoln Journal-Star endorsed president Bush sad.gif mad.gif , causing me to spill my espresso on my lap in shock and dismay. ohmy.gif ohmy.gif All the endorsement did was "influence" me to begin crafting a great letter to the editor taking them to the woodshed over such an action. shifty.gif
Yes, that one about knocked me to the floor. In the "Husker State" an endorsement of Bush by the Journal Star was as likely as Tom Osborne announcing his support for legal Gay Marriage.
I think I've seen it all now.
The Red Sox WIN the World Series
The Huskers get beat 70 - 10
AND
The Journal Star endorses Bush over Kerry
What a strange year.
Yes, that one about knocked me to the floor. In the "Husker State" an endorsement of Bush by the Journal Star was as likely as Tom Osborne announcing his support for legal Gay Marriage.
I think I've seen it all now.
The Red Sox WIN the World Series
The Huskers get beat 70 - 10
AND
The Journal Star endorses Bush over Kerry
What a strange year.
[/quote]
Good to hear from you red!, I've been wondering what you've been up to these days. Yes, strange days in cornhusker land. I can't believe the LJS endorsed Bush. I could see the endorsement of Fortenberry coming, but the Bush one just blew me away. They wrote enough critical editorials on him and a majority of the letters came out against him by a wide margin. I will truly know that a region below us is freezing should the Omaha World-Herald endorse Kerry or Nancy Thompson. Just to let you know, Osborne could get a civil union arragenment in Massachusetts and he would still be elected.
At least the LJS showed that they don't go in lock-step with the majority of their readers, something the Omaha paper has yet to prove.
I think I've seen it all now.
The Red Sox WIN the World Series
The Huskers get beat 70 - 10
AND
The Journal Star endorses Bush over Kerry
What a strange year.
[/quote]
Good to hear from you red!, I've been wondering what you've been up to these days. Yes, strange days in cornhusker land. I can't believe the LJS endorsed Bush. I could see the endorsement of Fortenberry coming, but the Bush one just blew me away. They wrote enough critical editorials on him and a majority of the letters came out against him by a wide margin. I will truly know that a region below us is freezing should the Omaha World-Herald endorse Kerry or Nancy Thompson. Just to let you know, Osborne could get a civil union arragenment in Massachusetts and he would still be elected.
At least the LJS showed that they don't go in lock-step with the majority of their readers, something the Omaha paper has yet to prove.
QUOTE
Just to let you know, Osborne could get a civil union arragenment in Massachusetts and he would still be elected. tongue.gif flowers.gif
totally agree
We laugh that the ballot for TO's opponent should just read "sacrificial lamb"
, and that He/She should get a nice "parting gift" when the election is over.
QUOTE(redliner1989 @ Oct 30 2004, 01:46 PM)
QUOTE
Just to let you know, Osborne could get a civil union arragenment in Massachusetts and he would still be elected. tongue.gif flowers.gif
totally agree
We laugh that the ballot for TO's opponent should just read "sacrificial lamb"
, and that He/She should get a nice "parting gift" when the election is over.Hey Red,
I honestly didn't mean to thread-jack the topic, but to get back on it to an extent: Would you vote for someone because the World Herald or Journal-Star endorsed them? What do you think of the LSJ endorsements?
QUOTE
Hey Red,
I honestly didn't mean to thread-jack the topic, but to get back on it to an extent: Would you vote for someone because the World Herald or Journal-Star endorsed them? What do you think of the LSJ endorsements?
I honestly didn't mean to thread-jack the topic, but to get back on it to an extent: Would you vote for someone because the World Herald or Journal-Star endorsed them? What do you think of the LSJ endorsements?
Oh, I didn't take it that way at all, and it is nice to be able to answer the question on a local level.
I read both papers fairly regularly and enjoy both. It is extremely obvious that, as liberal as the LJS is, the Herald is equally biased on the Conservative side.
Would I vote because either endorsed a certain Candidate or Cause?
I don't see it. By the time either has made an endorsement my mind has already been made up.
The only local issue, that is really up in the air, in my mind, is the expanded gambling issue. I see both sides of this argument, and it seems that on any given day my mind changes on it. I can only assume that, on the walk up to the polling place (2 blocks from my home), I will finally decide that issue. The LJS was against it, but I can't say it did anything to add to, or against the argument.
I find it an interesting argument that the anti-gambling side trotted out Mrs. T.O. and even her endorsement didn't effect my thoughts on it.
I love the argument that "if I vote for expanded gambling, those dollars will go to Las Vegas". Don't people realize that when they Shop at Wal-Mart, those Dollars go to Arkansas?
Oh, well, that is what rhetoric is all about.
Take Care Nebraska.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.