"How can a newspaper be objective on the front page when it endorses a candidate on the editorial page?" writes Rick Stengel, Managing Editor of Time Magazine. His column discusses the legitimacy of endorsements, which nearly 30 percent of papers still do.
Stengel is honest about objectivity - there's no such thing, and transparency is better both for the paper's image and its ability to draw in readers. But he concludes by saying that endorsements still undermine the credibility of the paper, especially with the elusive younger demographic.
As Stengel points out, most young people don't get why endorsements are there in the first place, and I, stereotypically, must agree.
If I know the paper I'm reading leans to the far right in the first place, it's not likely that I'll be surprised when they endorse McCain, or that I'd respect them for going against the grain and picking a Democrat.
You report, let me decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting post, Rob. I think it must be a generational thing. I grew up assuming newspapers would endorse candidates, providing guidance to their readers. On the other hand, I must say it was always tough to explain to readers that the editorial page was separate from the newsroom. Many assumed their endorsements tainted our news coverage. Dumping the endorsements all together would solve that problem.
Good post. It wasn't overbearing or unnecessarily wordy. Clear and to the point. Nice job. I wonder if you happen to know of an more articles that pertain to newspapers age old tradition of endorsing. If so, let me know.
JL - There are several stories on this subject on Poynter's Romenesko blog. Here are a few:
http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=113303
http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=73592
http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=90329
Post a Comment