Journalism and American Democracy

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

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/