After more than a year of campaigning, this election season is finally winding down to a close, with the big day being exactly a week away.  Pretty much everyone has his or her mind made up at this point of who will win their vote come Tuesday (although the alleged ‘undecided voters’ among us continue to provide ample comedic material: http://onion.com/X9Bz1x).  That being said, most major news outlets are still participating in an age-old tradition of candidate endorsement.  Given that most everyone came to a decision some weeks ago (if not earlier), this sort of begs the question of why they even bother?  It would seem that should the undecided voters have been convince-able in the first place, one more newspaper editorial wouldn’t make much difference.  But save that for another day.

Some of said political endorsements come as no surprise to the general public; we often have preconceived notions of different outlets’ particular politics (for example, The New Yorker), so when they endorse a candidate (spoiler alert – they picked Obama) nobody bats an eye.  At other times, however, a publication’s endorsement takes us quite by surprise, as was the case when the Salt Lake Tribune, the largest paper in Salt Lake City, Utah, backed Obama.

At first glance, the New Yorker endorsement seems pretty much what we’d expect – the loquacious literary styling that we (well, some of us anyway) love about New Yorker pieces, the staunchly liberal politics, the praise of President Obama’s first term…  But a closer examination yields more interesting insights.  The editorial seems split up into three fairly neat parts: a criticism/review of Bush, a mostly praiseworthy review of Obama’s first term, and a criticism of Romney.  Though it’s no shock that they picked Obama, it does seem surprising they devoted roughly equivalent space to attacking Romney.  In apologizing for certain missteps in Obama’s political career, they also try to portray him as both an average, flawed person, and a uniquely mysterious political figure, a tactic I ultimately find unconvincing.  But then again, we could argue that readers of the New Yorker aren’t likely to care enough to change their votes.

The Tribune, on the other hand, takes a much more straightforward approach to its endorsement. They also criticize Romney pretty harshly, although more for his lack of committal to any particular political stance rather than his occasional flirting with far-right ideals.  They seem to miss the ‘pragmatic’ Romney of the past, finding this new and ever-changing version wholly unsatisfying.  The editors give their approval to some of Obama’s domestic and foreign policies, citing a successful struggle to preserve the economy, and his handling of the evolving situations in the Middle East.  Moreover, they cite Obama as a ‘competent leader’, saying he’s earned a second term.  From their tone, it sounds as though as content as they are with Obama, they are equally displeased with Romney’s shifting stances on nearly every issue, both of which proved important in their decision.

But hey, sometimes people surprise you.  Then again, sometimes they don’t.

http://nyr.kr/PEPwEc        http://shar.es/cErtF