tool name

Saturday, Nov. 07, 2009

Tom Frazier: Sun-Star support -- boon or bane?

Last week, the Sun-Star editorial board endorsed candidates for Merced's mayor and City Council positions.

The endorsements were formed by the board after editors attended forums conducted by candidates. In some years, each candidate is interviewed by the editorial board.

Did it help or hurt the candidates?

Do endorsements improve the Sun-Star's credibility?

Or do they just irritate half the audience?

There seems to be a trend for newspapers to discontinue the long-established practice of endorsing candidates. Recently, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution joined that crowd saying, "We have heard from readers -- and we agree -- that you don't need us to tell you how to vote."

Likewise, the Grand Forks Herald has stopped endorsements. Instead, the editorial board posts transcripts of their interviews with candidates.

USA Today founder Al Neuharth says newspaper readers would benefit if "decision-makers at newspapers quit trying to be kingmakers" by endorsing candidates. He adds: "Enlightened newspaper editors and owners have come to understand that when they endorse a political candidate their news coverage becomes suspect in the eyes of readers, even though most reporters are basically fair and accurate."

But not everyone agrees with the no-endorsement approach. Gilbert Cranberg of the Des Moines Register, seems to think it's just wimping out: "A lot of papers take the easy way during elections either by not endorsing or by running wishy-washy editorials that give the least offense."

Like many issues, there is no real consensus. There are opinions along varying lines, from readers' ages, to the level of the election.

Some say newspapers have an "obligation to endorse."

Some say endorsements should be for local issues only. They claim there's plenty of information available for national candidates and issues.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Ted Diadiun puts it this way, "Endorsements are fine when it comes to races and issues about which the voters know so little that they need the newspaper to help separate the qualified from the incompetent."

The Committee of Concerned Journalists, plays the age card, "Young news consumers are suspicious about traditional authority. They prize objectivity, straightforwardness and transparency. I doubt there's a reader under 30 who gets why newspapers endorse presidential candidates -- and most of the ones I talk to ask the following: How can a newspaper be objective on the front page when it endorses a candidate on the editorial page?"

Years ago, I heard Mercedians say a Sun-Star endorsement was a kiss of death. Back then it seemed like the "other" candidate" usually won.

Which begs the point, do endorsements really matter? The Pew Research Center for People & the Press found that endorsements by local newspapers have mixed effects -- with equal amounts of positive and negative reactions -- both around 15 percent.

Sixty-nine percent of those Pew questioned said newspaper endorsements have "no effect" on their vote.

Religious leaders fare a bit better than newspapers. Eighteen percent of Pew's weekly News Interest Index survey said an endorsement from their minister, priest or rabbi would make them more likely to vote for a candidate.

Celebrity endorsements, with two exceptions, are much less consistent than religious leaders. In most cases, an endorsement by a celebrity showed a net negative.

The exceptions? Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Oprah Winfrey.

The Sun-Star editorial endorsement ended with the comment, "So those are our recommendations. Do with them what you will."

I hope you did.

Tom Frazier writes Sun Dog and can be reached at sundog@promessage.com.