Journalism and American Democracy

As the race for the presidency winds down we have and will continue to see more endorsements for a presidential candidate. Just last week Colin Powell endorsed Obama. But what significance do these endorsements hold, especially more now that the election is only one week away? While these endorsements are legitimate and have an impact I think it is more so to affirm the decisions voters have already made. These public figures serve as role models to the general public. By making a decision and having it affirmed by someone you look up to is a comforting feeling. If a person you admire endorses someone else you can always move to the next without hesitation. Apart from the – what I would say – lack of  influence on the decision the language endorsements use is interesting especially toward this election.

In the LA Times, references to the Bush administration go nowhere near unnoticeable. With phrases such as “misguided adventure” and referring to opponents as assailants, the rhetoric is by no means subtle to the watchful eye. While an endorsement is obviously partisan, the language is accusatory and set out to attack. But passive-aggressively. Apart from  being accusatory toward the beginning of the piece, it also concludes with an accusatory line besides the usual “we urge you to reelect Obama.” They state, “The alternative offered by Romney would neglect the country’s infrastructure and human resources for the sake of yet another tax cut and a larger defense budget than even the Pentagon is seeking.” By bringing in the Pentagon, images of the 9/11 attacks still haunt the public. By using such images, the LA Times equates Romney to these attacks on America. This was prevalent throughout the entire article. Therefore, it is easy to state that the LA Times focused more on crating a negative image out of Romney, than a positive one of Obama.

The Des Moines Register on the other hand focused on how they believed Romney would be able to address, what they labeled, the most important issue of this election: the economy. It focuses on the business successes of Romney and how they would reflect his successes in the economy. They site his experience. the structure also differs from the times, as it seems to be more of a conversation with Romney getting the last word. By structuring as such there is better portrayal of the newspaper as a subject that was not taken lightly (as it should be portayed). But to conclude, the Register did what I found to be very interesting and a method to disqualify themselves as a partisan newspaper. They listed all the previous endorsements – which include both GOP and Democrat) and whether those endorsed won.

What we receive from both sources are different approaches. One is more lingering on the past and mentions of the future, while the other is more on the now and the future. Whatever the case, the newspapers took their stance and lived with their failed or successful endorsement.

With just hours left in this crazy campaign, there is more speculation than ever as to who the man will be that runs this country for the next four years.  Everyone seems to have his or her own input, and major news sources are not exempt.  As to the effectiveness or relevance of newspaper endorsements, I cannot hazard a guess.  But what I do know is that the media is expected to remain largely neutral (see “professionalism”), and this is one of the few times that newspapers outright declare which candidate it supports.  Gone are the façades of political agendas wrapped in rhetoric – this is a display of newspapers taking a stance in the final hour.

I compared two very different news sources from geographically diverse locations, and with very different audiences: The Baltimore Sun and The Daily Herald.  Each newspaper endorsed one candidate and one candidate only.

The Baltimore Sun, as many other newspapers seemed to do, endorsed President Barack Obama for re-election with more than just a hint of concern.  This concern sprung out of many unfulfilled promises and blunders of the Obama administration over the last four years.  One of the biggest issues touched upon was the divide between our two parties in this political system we have adopted as our own.  At the beginning of the article, although the Baltimore Sun supports the president, Obama’s shortcomings were laid out one by one, ending with the statement saying, “…most disappointingly, the promise of a new politics to move us beyond a long and bitter partisan divide remains painfully unfulfilled,” in regards to the president’s last term.  The Baltimore Sun concluded, “We endorse President Obama for re-election, with this caution: We can’t afford four more years of gridlock. Perhaps Republicans will be more willing to work with a second-term President Obama, perhaps they won’t, but the buck stops with him.”  Essentially, the Sun states that we must overcome the party divides and collaborate to actually bolster this weak economy that our country is grappling with now.  Again, by stressing the importance of bipartisanship or bust, the Baltimore Sun warily cast their endorsement vote for Obama.

The Daily Herald, on the other hand, seemed more sure in their decision to endorse Mitt Romney in this election.  It is important to note that this Chicago suburb newspaper backed Senator Obama just four years ago at this time.  This article walked through the decision-making process of switching across the aisle in their endorsement.  However, rather than point fingers to simply make the opponent look bad, the Herald gave a fair account, saying “Whomever is elected will be trusted in large measure with the fate of a stumbling economy, a foreboding debt crisis, a gridlocked government and an unstable world.”  And while this article was fair, it clearly outlined the differences between the candidates: “… it is clear that one trusts government too much; the other appears to trust it too little.”  In the end, however, the Daily Herald could not dispute the fact that the economic crisis is at the forefront of American concerns, saying, “Ultimately, we endorse Romney because he, unlike Obama, understands that jobs are a creation of business, not of government.”

In this brief pause in American political history – the calm before the storm, or at least the ceasing of winds for the time being – gives rise to some interesting commentary from our sources of news.

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

Newspaper endorsements predict the victory of President Barack Obama in the 2012 election. Obama has obtained endorsements from 33 large  newspapers while Romney’s trails with 27. An even more interesting fact is Obama’s 33 newspapers almost doubled Romney’s 27 in circulation numbers, beating him 8,785,527 to 4,902,724. What do these positive endorsements for Barack have to say about his last election and his impending next election? What do these positive endorsements for Romney have to say for his past term in Massachusetts and how he would perform as the President of the United States?

Obama supporters continually cite his achievements within his first term as president; his success in bailing out the Auto Industry, in starting the withdraw of troops from Iraq, of saving the country from collapsing into a Great Depression. Papers such as the Toledo Blade state that Obamas’ “stimulus he promoted… helped prevent the recession from becoming a depression.” The News and Observer of Raleigh North Carolina stated that Obama “helped create jobs in many parts of the country (including urban North Carolina)”. Other more prominent news papers such as the New York Times states that Obama made great strides during his presidency in civil rights, with overcoming his hesitation on same-sex marriage, and legislating out of existence the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy concerning the United States Army. The New York Times claims that Obama also made great strides in health care and created jobs in school renovations and road projects that helped pull America out of a dark time in the economy. But was this enough, where all of these accomplishments enough?

They sure were not enough for Romney supporters, and this is what many of the Romney endorsements explained in their articles. Romney supporters claim that this “change” platform of Obama was not enough change, and the change now, needs to be a new president. Newspapers such as the Richmond Times Dispatch states that “Romney understands the value of free enterprise..and  in this year’s candidates he is alone in that respect.” And the Naples Daily Review states that they believe that the economy is on its eventual way back, but the total recovery of the economy will only attribute from a different kind of change, the change of the Romney administration. Other newspapers such as the Cincinnati Enquirer cite his success in Massachusetts economy crisis to his business back ground, saying, “Romney’s approach was business like. He didn’t spare any sacred cows.”

Overall, the general consensus of endorsements, of the papers still continuing to endorse, favor Obama. And those papers that favor Romney do so in hindsight becasue they feel like Obama did not do enough, and Romney’s more business like approach will save the economy.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/oct/28/tdopin01-romney-promises-hope-for-recovery-ar-2314814/

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/oct/28/editorial-president-of-the-united-states/

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121028/EDIT01/310280050/Enquirer-presidential-endorsement-Mitt-Romney?nclick_check=1

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/28/2440915/obama-again.html

http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/2012/10/28/lt-div-class-libPageBodyLinebreak-gt-Re-elect-President-Obama-lt-div-gt.html

I compared the presidential endorsements published by the Detroit Free Press and the Tennessean. While the two papers supported different candidates, both endorsements offered passionate commentary on the presidential race and pertinent issues at stake. The two endorsements were also interesting in that one seemed to focus more on the past accomplishments of the candidates while the other seemed to focus on the candidates’ flaws and shortcomings.

The Tennessean, which ultimately endorses Mitt Romney, does not seem to think too highly of either candidate. The article describes this presidential election as a “cautionary lesson for the future.” Its commentary criticizes both Barack Obama and Romney for faults relating to health care and foreign policy, and especially attacks Obama for contributing to the partisan gridlock that has rendered American politics ineffective and failing to establish any sort of bipartisan cooperation. The Tennessean views the economy as by far the most important issue in the election, and it endorses Romney due to his experience working with businesses and job creation. However, the article is fairly critical of Romney throughout its commentary, and it seems to endorse Romney largely through a total lack of faith in Obama.

The Detroit Free Press, endorsing Obama, seems significantly more confident and optimistic regarding its choice and America’s future. The article describes Obama’s first term as being quite positive and productive, citing as evidence the elimination of Osama bin Laden, the winding down of the war in Iraq, the increase of jobs in the auto industry, and the expanded coverage of health care. It also criticizes Romney for his tendency to flip-flop on issues and his ambiguity on methods for decreasing the deficit, and these criticisms were levied by the endorsement in the Tennessean as well. Overall, the Detroit Free Press is pretty enthusiastic in its support of President Obama.

These two papers offer significantly different outlooks on the upcoming presidential election, as well as on the current state of American politics in general. The Detroit Free Press is confident in its claim that the nation is heading in the right direction under President Obama, and views the past four years as successful progress. The Tennessean, on the other hand, is severely discouraged by the political gridlock of the past four years, and seems to support Romney largely because it simply does not believe the leadership of Obama will encourage bipartisanship or stimulate job growth. With Tennessee being a state that almost always votes Republican in the presidential election, and Michigan’s recent history of voting Democrat, it seems that biases related to readership and local influence may be at least somewhat visible here. In any case, it is interesting to see such divergent takes on the presidential election from mainstream papers in major U.S. cities.

Detroit Free Press Endorsement: http://www.freep.com/article/20121028/OPINION01/121026117

Tennessean Endorsement: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20121018/OPINION01/310180040/-1/PROJECTS18?nclick_check=1

Although the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press both cover news for the Twin Cities in Minnesota, the papers have different policies when it comes to newspaper endorsements in presidential elections. Particularly in a race that is as close as this one is purported to be, it is understandable that a newspaper would choose not to endorse either candidate, for fear of alienation of its readership.  In an article he wrote regarding the phenomenon of endorsements, David Brauer quotes the editor of the Pioneer Press, Mike Burbach, as stating, “We just wanted to do it this way, this year. At this moment, it’s more comfortable for me.” Although the paper still publishes editorials regarding the election, as well as interviews with the candidates, Burbach states, upon receiving little feedback from the paper’s readership: “I guess that tells me people are going to make up their own minds, whether you do endorsements or not, and they have ever-more sources of information.”

While the Pioneer Press has not endorsed a candidate in this presidential election nor the previous, the Star Tribune has followed a different pattern.  The paper, with nearly 100,000 more readers than the Pioneer Press, has endorsed Obama for the second election in a row.  The Editorial Board made the endorsement despite “disappointment over the lost opportunities of his first four years.”  The Board cites concerns about Romney’s tendency to adapt his image depending on the circumstance, as they write, “But who can be certain which Romney will appear next? How can any American be sure where he stands on gay rights, immigration, climate change, reproductive rights and investment in education?” While it may seem like a risky move for the Star Tribune to endorse a candidate for presidency when its rival newspaper has elected not to dole out an endorsement, this is hardly the case.  As the state with the longest voting streak in the nation, in this case, for Democratic presidential candidates, it is treated as a given among Minnesota citizens that it is and always will be a blue state. When a friend of mine turned eighteen years old shortly before the 2008 presidential election, her dad said to her, “As a conservative living in Minnesota, get used to just throwing your vote away.”  Surely this is an extreme view of inefficacy, however the voting record of Minnesota speaks for itself.  While it is interesting that one paper chose to give an endorsement while the other did not, an endorsement of Obama is hardly surprising. An endorsement of Romney in Minnesota? That would be an article worth reading.

The following are links to the Minnpost article regarding the Pioneer Press’s non-endorsement, as well as the endorsement of Obama by the Star Tribune:

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2012/10/why-st-paul-pioneer-press-dropped-political-endorsements

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/176032451.html?refer=y

For extra information, this link displays general election endorsements by the top 100 newspapers based on daily circulation for both 2008 and 2012:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012_newspaper_endorsements.php

For newspapers with broad readership, such as The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, abstinence has generally been the policy. Neither newspaper typically endorses a candidate during presidential campaigns. More targeted papers, however, have a tendency to endorse one candidate or the other. This decision to endorse is not the case for the Chicago Sun-Times nor the Oregonian this election cycle after both endorsing Barack Obama in 2008. I believe that scholars can gain insight into newspaper politics by analyzing two papers that chose not to endorse a presidential candidate after a history of taking a side in elections.

The Oregonian, a Portland based newspaper, typically chooses left-leaning candidates for its endorsement but chose not to endorse Barack Obama in the 2012 election. The editorial board justified their decision to abstain from the presidential election while still endorsing candidates in local races for several reasons. First, the board argues that the readers have the same access to information that the editors do regarding the presidential election, but lack sufficient information to make informed decisions in local elections. Secondly, the Oregonian noted that neither candidate had come to the state for open dialogue regarding issues that concern Oregonians. This lack of visitation has left both the Oregonian Editorial Board and citizens of the state with insufficient evidence to form a nuanced opinion of the candidates. The newspaper stated that it will not officially endorse a candidate, but will “take advantage of acute contrasts in the presidential contest” to assess the legitimacy of either candidate and analyze their policies. Further the newspaper promised to publicize the candidates when they show signs of listening to the interests of Oregon.

Back in the midwest, in one of the most shocking decisions of the endorsement cycle, the Chicago Sun-Times chose abstinence as well. Obama’s own hometown newspaper, that chose to endorse the President in 2008, decided that it was not appropriate to endorse candidates in the election. Instead of taking a side and endorsing a single political candidate, the Sun-Times chose to “provide clear and accurate information about who the candidates are and where they stand on issues most important to our city, our state and our country.” The paper aimed to allow a side-by-side comparison of candidates and their views. The paper will further publicize assessments of experts, but not endorse any of the opinions. Like the Oregonian, the paper argued that the vast array of media outlets and information sources allow voters to become informed on issues without the need for newspaper endorsements. The Sun-Times further justified its abstinence by citing evidence that claims endorsements don’t change many votes especially in presidential election and even promote the perception of a hidden bias. The newspaper claimed that its commitment to nonpartisanship is the driving cause of its lack of endorsement.

Both newspapers that chose not to endorse candidates shared many of the same justifications for their abstinence. The main theme of both pieces was that voters now, more than any other time in the past, have sufficient information to make their own informed decisions without the influence of the papers. Our use of Twitter in class has led me to hesitantly agree with this claim. While there is far more information available to voters, there is also much more misinformation available. Voters should be able to shift through the available news and information to reach an informed decision, but problems arise if they are not able to do so. This is where I believe newspaper come into play. Newspapers serve to shift through information and should do so transparently. While the Oregonian and Sun-Tribune argue that not endorsing a candidate allows them to be more nonpartisan, I believe that the limitations to journalistic objectivity make partisanship inevitable to a point. In this sense, it is best for papers to be transparent in their coverage by endorsing a candidate but still maintaining an effort to remain impartial.

Looking at a meta-analysis of newspaper endorsements of the top hundred newspapers by circulation, a few things strike me. First, the two largest newspapers, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, do not generally endorse candidates. There are a couple of others as well, perhaps most notably Deseret News, which one imagines would lean pro-Romney if for nothing other than its name. Secondly, both these newspapers have lost fairly significant ground to newspapers that do in the last four years, USA Today in particular. Thirdly, the influence of such newspapers has diminished. Their total subscriptions went from 27,138,751 subscriptions to 23,598,488, a loss of over three and a half million. Thirdly, it is notable that Romney already outnumbers McCain in the number of endorsements he’s received, and is only two hundred thousand behind McCain in terms of subscriptions of those newspapers. Since there are still a little under a third of newspapers who have not endorse either candidate, things look more optimistic for him than McCain, and indeed he is significantly closer to Obama in terms of both newspapers and subscribers than McCain was (though lagging behind Obama in aggregate).

Regardless, I looked at the two largest newspapers’ endorsements, for two reasons. First, if we presume subscription number has any effect on newspapers influence, and we must if we are to accept the premise that newspapers can influence the matter at all, these two papers combined represent over one percent of the electorate and a little under ten percent of top hundred newspaper subscriptions. Secondly newspapers desire success and thus might seek to emulate their styles if not their content. Thirdly they are more directly comparable simply for the fact both newspapers endorsed Barrack Obama both in this and the previous election, thus both being ‘loyalists’ of his. Indeed, the Times has not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower.

I wonder, and in truth do not know, how endorsement decisions are made. But it seems to break all rules of professionalism present elsewhere. The articles are unabashedly normative, loyalist, and hostile in a way uncommon to professional press and more suited to party rags. Notably the LA Times calls it an ‘endorsement’ while the New York Times calls it an ‘editorial’, but it is not really the latter because this is a statement of the views of the newspaper, not just the writer. It is true that it is an opinion rather than news, but it cannot be followed by the usual disavowal that it is the writer’s and not the newspaper’s opinion which is a staple of that genre. Despite the increased culpability, there is little admission of imperfection in either, and nearly half of the LA Times piece is dedicated not to talking up Obama but attacking Romney. While this is expected of politicos, it certainly opens them to criticism and accusations of dirty partisanship I would think a paper would avoid.

I also find it remarkable how blind both endorsements seem. They seem entirely unaware, for example, that someone might look at certain things they condemn Romney for and see them as good things. If they were aware, I think, they would have put some arguments in support of such a position, and thus its absence speaks to it. To use a more controversial example, both the LA Times and New York Times speak of the overturning of Roe v Wade as a strike against Romney without explaining or qualifying it, ignoring that the last Gallup poll has’pro-choice’ Americans are at a record low and outnumbered by ‘pro-life’ Americans. This is not to open that debate, I feel I must stress, but merely to point out that they treat this as a persuasive argument rather than a point to be defended. If we take this as a true barometer of the opinions of the newspaper, that implies the newspaper is so liberal that it cannot understand conservatism as a phenomenon, which is unfortunate.

Also, to the Los Angeles Times, ‘modulating’ is not an acceptable synonym for mutable, varying, wishy washy, flip flopping, or any such word, if not in denotation then in connotation.

All in all, I’m skeptical of the effects this will actually have on the election, but they are interesting as a phenomena in of themselves. And perhaps more interestingly to me, it seems perhaps the most firm evidence for the liberal leanings of the press, which up till now I had seen little but speculation and the bitter raving of conservatives about.

Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012_newspaper_endorsements.php

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-president-20121021,0,5490210.story

There is a great website by the American Presidency Project that compares the endless newspaper endorsements that have been flying out in the last week. It shows the 34 endorsements for Obama compared to the 28 for Romney. It shows the higher total number of circulation under the Obama newspaper endorsements than the Romney ones. And it also shows the unique trend of newspapers (current number sitting at 10) that endorsed Obama in 2008 but now endorse Governor Romney. It is understandable that many of these newspapers have flip flopped after seeing a slower than promised comeback of the economy. I happened to be more intrigued by the 1 lone newspaper that flip flopped the other way – The San Antonio Express News – and the newspaper that is probably the most predictable in presidential endorsements (even more so now for their native son), The Chicago Tribune.
Most Texas metropolitan newspapers – like The Houston Chronicle and The Star Telegram (Fort Worth) – surprisingly endorsed Obama in 2008 but this year chose to endorse Romney and those other Texas newspapers that endorsed McCain in 2008 stayed with the party ticket. Except for the San Antonio Express News. The Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times (which no longer endorses) had both decided to back Senator Obama in 2008 and to be honest, there was really no other choice for the two major newspapers of the candidate’s political hometown. The San Antonio Express News headlined their endorsement with the statement that “Obama has earned a second term” – a surprising divergence from the general theme of this campaign season, that Obama may not have done great but he’s still better than that other guy. The Tribune is more harsh on the president. The article references the list of reasons it gave in 2008 for why they endorsed Obama and one by one graded the president’s performance over the past years and whether he proved them right. The Tribune cited his decisiveness, which shined through in his expert handling of foreign affairs. The Express-News is equally as praising towards his foreign policy. The Tribune originally believed in his bipartisan appeal though, which both papers cited as a true failure of the president’s last four years. But surprisingly the papers differ in their general message. The Express News is optimistic, recognizing the handicap Obama deserves due to the mess he inherited and is extremely impressed by his immigration reform – an important issue to the state of Texas. The Tribune goes in depth about how Romney is a viable candidate for president due to and how the president never came through on the “change” he promised. It can be seen as a sort of lesson of “tough love” for Chicago’s native son. Both papers however reach their conclusion for Obama within the same vein as the rest of America – that he is the lesser of two evils. Romney raises skepticism with his tax plan and his big business past. Interestingly enough, the San Antonio Express-News never references its previous endorsement, as if it never happened. It is intriguing to think about the reason why they flip flopped but the reader will never know for sure. With the Tribune, their justification for past endorsements and reasons for the current endorsement are laid out in a clear, transparent way. This is much more convincing, despite both papers endorsing the same candidate.

The online satire news source, the Onion, recently ran an article declaring that it was endorsing John Edwards in the 2012 Presidential Election. The obvious inaccuracy in endorsement was used to poke fun at the importance of news agencies declaring their official stance on the election. Newspaper endorsement of political candidates, however, may play an important role in influencing undecided voters. Analyzing endorsement decisions can shine light on important issues during the campaign and how journalists cover politics. I thought it would be interesting to look at two different newspapers that endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, but chose to switch their endorsement to Mitt Romney in 2012. These newspapers will offer insight into criticisms of Obama’s first four years. The two largest newspapers to shy away from the President were the Houston Chronicle and the Star-Telegram of Fort Worth, Texas (with readerships of 384,007 and 195,455 respectively).

Fort Worth’s Star-Telegram is quite centrist in its analysis of the presidential race and its endorsement of Mitt Romeny. Framing their decision around the second debate, the main focus of the article is economic policy. The Star-Telegram acknowledges the successes of Obama in foreign policy and social policy. They also point out that the President should not be blamed for neither the economic crisis nor the slow recovery from it. The primary argument for choosing Romney in 2012 instead of Obama is less of a response to the President’s record and more of a desire for new eyes for a stagnant situation. The Star-Telegram places faith in Romeny’s ability to combine his business and public service experience to work with a divided congress to create economic growth.

The Houston Chronicle, on the other hand, is much more conservative in its endorsement decision. The newspaper acknowledges that Obama was the first non-Republican candidate that they had endorsed in 44 years, claiming that they had fallen for his “soaring rhetoric and… promise to move American politics beyond gridlock.” Contrary to the Star-Telegram’s endorsement, the Chronicle focuses mostly on Obama’s failures as president. The paper’s criticisms are much more geographically focused than the Star-Telegram. For example, the primary reason for the Chronicle’s endorsement was Obama’s failure with NASA and the energy industry. The Chronicle does add a caveat that Americans need Romney to further articulate his tax and budget proposals. Similar to the Star-Telegram, the Chronicle claims that Romney is a “fix-it man” that is willing and able to negotiate across party lines and repair the broken economy.

It is interesting that the two largest papers to change their endorsements between 2008 and 2012 are from Texas. It makes sense that a more conservative state would be the first to jump off the Obama bandwagon. Other major papers that made such a switch come from Florida (Orlando Sentinel and Fort Lauderdale’s Sun Sentinel) and Tennessee (Nashville’s Tennessean). I believe that the primary reason for endorsement is readership, newspapers want to appeal to the local constituency and support a candidate that the local readers would agree with. Thus, papers attempting to attract new readers that would want to endorse a more popular candidate. In 2008, Obama’s soaring popularity made it justifiable for a conservative or centrist paper to endorse the President. Obama’s 2012 approval ratings are much, especially in the south and amongst right-leaning voters, making it much harder for southern conservative newspapers to endorse the incumbent.

It is no surprise that The Chicago Tribune has chosen to endorse President Barack Obama in the upcoming election—he is, after all, a Chicago native who was dubbed “Chicago’s favorite son” in 2008 during his race against Senator John McCain. Any Chicagoan, myself included, remembers watching Obama stand in Grant Park in front of dozens of American flags and thousands of cheering Americans the night he won his election and became the first African American president in history. His campaign for hope and change, combined with the feeling that we were literally witnessing history being made, created an electric energy that moved our city. This is a city that loves Obama. Surprisingly though, the article remains evenly partisan and refrains from endorsing and praising the President blindly. The Tribune offers strong reasoning for backing up Obama, but reminds the reader that there are certain areas in which Romney stands above Obama and thematically reminds the reader that bipartisan agreement is crucial if American’s want to see progress made in fighting the ever-growing deficit these next four years.

This is a city that has proudly watched him take on the challenges that awaited him when he took office—a failing economy, the housing and auto industries on the brink of collapse, and a limited number of jobs available. He has taken on these issues and made progress; despite the long road ahead, the Tribune credits Obama with maintaining pragmatism consistently throughout the campaign. The Tribune went onto backup their somewhat predictable endorsement, saying Obama has led our country by acting with “decisiveness and intellectual rigor,” that they saw in him four years ago. The Tribune use his track record—impressive handling of world affairs, some tax cuts, and passing a revolutionary health care plan for all Americans. But they also acknowledge his many shortcomings as president, including his failure to decrease the out-of-control deficit and instead doubling it during his term. They end with a plea to whoever shall take their spot in the White House this January: to face the deficit head on and do anything possible to reduce it, for it is the future generation who will condemn their fathers if they are left to clean up the mess left by politicians who have the power and awareness to do something now. By intellectually establishing the issues, and acknowledging the failings of Obama, The Chicago Tribune provides a strong, well thought out case for their endorsement of the President, even though we all saw that one coming.

What is surprising, however, is that good old Barack has not succeeded in maintaining the support of everyone in his hometown. The Dailey Herald, an independent suburban Chicago newspaper, recently announced their endorsement for Governor Romney. One city; two candidates; each of them gaining popularity among the Chicagoans. The newspaper cited loss of hope as their reasoning for changing their democratic endorsement in 2008 to supporting the republicans in 2012. However, the article fails to go into the issues. Instead, they give a bleak overview of politics today, writing, “Today, our country is still polarized, our politics is still partisan, our economy slugs along painfully on one of the slowest recoveries in history and the country’s debt threatens our future and the future of our children.” Although the newspaper acknowledges that Obama does not deserve all of the fault for the issues facing our country today, they place a lot of the burden on his shoulders. Addressing why they chose to support of Romney, they argue that Obama has failed to characterize the different classes in America and address them fairly during his time in office. Thus, they have turned to Romney, who has promised to provide jobs through businesses, not government, and successfully work across the aisle to create bipartisan solutions for the problems facing America today. To work together for the common good, the newspaper argues, is the most important thing. Interestingly, The Dailey Herald fails to go into many specifics, rather settling for vague claims about the candidate’s record in handling issues and overall philosophies. Without the concrete reasoning for their support of Romney, the endorsement comes off as more of a political move than a well thought out decision.

Using publications from a candidate’s hometown usually fails to provide an unbiased decision for their endorsement, so it is refreshing to see The Chicago Tribune offering strong reasoning behind their decision to support their hometown hero. Interestingly, this reasoning was even stronger than that provided by The Dailey Herold, who used ideas rather than facts and events to maintain their surprising claim that Romney should take over the White House in January. Although Illinois is one of the most decided states in this election, these articles would be extremely useful for an Illinois native to take a look at so they can ensure that they are voting for their candidate for the right reasons, and not just because he came from their city.

Sources:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-26/news/chi-obama-endorsement-chicago-tribune-20121026_1_president-obama-barack-obama-tax-cuts

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121028/discuss/710289939/

Before I get to my analysis, I thought that this was an interesting list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012

This Wikipedia entry shows which daily newspapers endorsed Obama or Romney this year. The thing that I found to be the most interesting is that many of the papers that endorsed Romney are underdog papers. I’m not really sure why this would be or what the significance of this trend is, but I thought it was worth noting.

The first endorsement I read was from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/2786321-74/mitt-romney-president-america-policy-government-obama-public-scandal-think#axzz29tLmOFVd).  They endorsed Mitt Romney, claiming that President Obama’s administration has been rife with scandal. While they spend a lot of their endorsement bashing Obama, all they really manage to say about Romney is that he is a “good and decent man and proven politician.” It’s a short editorial, so when they do commend Romney, they do so in a rather broad and unspecific way. Throughout this election, all I personally have been looking for is specifics. When sources, whether they be the candidates themselves or media outlets, fail to give specific information, it is frustrating. Even though this is an editorial, the Tribune-Review should be able to go into more detail than they actually do.

The Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-26/news/chi-obama-endorsement-chicago-tribune-20121026_1_president-obama-barack-obama-tax-cuts/2), however, writes a lengthy and thorough endorsement for President Obama’s re-election. They focus on several issues the nation will face, and spend the entire first part of the column going into detail about the things Obama has done over his tenure in office that they find favorable, as well as the things they hope he can continue to do. It isn’t even until nearly the second page of the editorial that they start to talk about what they find unfavorable about Romney.

Perhaps the differences between the styles and content in each of the endorsements are telling signs as to why the Tribune is such a prominent publication, while the Tribune-Review is an underdog paper.

I’m straying a bit from the assignment on this one to point out an interesting trend in my home state and in New Hampshire, two swing states up for grabs this election.

I know everyone thinks Nevada leans blue, because it voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but I see a different trend. I see a state that is consistently in the highest bracket for unemployment – try being 51st out of 50 states in September 2012 (they’re counting D.C.) – and a people that despises its neighboring Californians almost as much as they love their guns. It’s a state that regularly puts out Tea Party congressional candidate, like Sharron Angle who produced ads attacking the Latino immigrant population, and the national circuit seems to think Harry Reid is still relevant to Nevadans when the reality is he gets reelected so that Nevadans are relevant to the national circuit.

How Nevada voted by county in the most recent presidential elections.

So when Barack Obama gets elected in 2008 with an endorsement from Reno Gazette-Journal, it means that the two most populous areas of the state will overshadow the rest of the born and bred red. And when that paper endorses Mitt Romney in 2012, it’s not something to ignore. Just look at the map – and recall that in 1996 Nevada went blue for Clinton and in 2004 Nevada went red for Bush. What’s the difference here? The state goes blue when a populous northwestern part of the state joins Las Vegas in going blue. Without Reno, I think Obama’s going to have a tougher time capturing those precious six votes.

Let’s look at New Hampshire, a state that also went blue for Obama in 2008. McCain swept the presidential endorsements during the Republican primary – leaving Romney largely ignored. Again in the 2012 election, the New Hampshire Union Leader – the only statewide paper – backed Newt Gingrich over Romney. But this fall, they have announced their support for him, and this may be because they are considered to be conservative-leaning. The Concord Monitor and the Nashua Telegraph both threw in their hats for Obama in 2008, but neither have announced support this election.

So what does this mean in New Hampshire? Perhaps a reluctance for either candidate, as the papers saw their primary picks ousted by Romney and are tepid about endorsing Obama when they had a decidedly Republican presidential record.

If you’re interested in taking a look at other swing state paper endorsements, here’s a link to a brief summary from ABC News.