Newspapers back away from endorsements

Study shows Republicans use divisive rhetoric far more often than Democrats

By Ken Tingley

Newspapers can no longer afford to endorse political candidates and our communities will be the worse for it.

Without endorsements, some of you will be unsure who is running and what their qualifications are for office.

Without endorsements, there will be fewer discussions at the dinner table or with friends about the issues and candidates.

Many will defer to their political party of choice without reviewing the candidates or issues at all.

And worst of all, some will not vote at all.

The evolution of The Post-Star’s editorial board was something I believed benefitted the community. Over two decades, the editorial board included the publisher, a couple editors and then up to four community members whose positions rotated each year. Each election cycle, we interviewed more and more political candidates. We interviewed dozens during the last election cycle when I was editor.

Those meetings allowed our board members to hear directly from candidates, to hear their ideas, to ask about their experiences and articulate what they would do if elected. We asked tough, but fair questions and over 30 to 60 minutes we got a pretty good sense of someone’s abilities.

We viewed it as a job interview. We didn’t care about your political party, we just wanted the best person for the job.

But more importantly, the endorsement editorials often allowed us to spotlight local, regional and state-wide elections few knew anything about.

How many of us even know who is on the ballot for comptroller and attorney general in the state of New York this year?

How many of us have a grasp of the pros and cons for the state senate and assembly races we will be asked to decide?

The Times Union just weighed in on the $4.2 billion environmental bond act proposition we will be voting on this Election Day. If you read the proposition, you are likely left with some questions. The T-U provided context to help you make up your mind.

That’s how editorials and endorsements can help us to be better citizens and make choices we believe will benefit us the best.

Bill Sternberg, the long-time editorial page editor of USA Today, told me endorsements had the most value on the community level.

“My general thought is that endorsements are most valuable at the local level, where voters don’t have as much information about the candidates for city council, school board, etc., as they do for national races,” Sternberg wrote in an email. “An editorial board can play an important role as an impartial arbiter of candidate quality and recommend those who would best serve the community.”

But readers don’t usually see it that way.

When I was editor, I often had to explain our endorsement process; that our decisions were made by an editorial board and not reporters and editors on the front lines of campaign coverage. But many readers did not believe that. They still don’t, so newspapers all across the country are abandoning the practice entirely.

Sternberg pointed out that USA Today went 38 years without making a presidential editorial endorsement before doing so for the first time in 2020. As many newspapers were running away from the controversy of an endorsement, USA Today ran toward it.

Sternberg pointed me toward this passage in their editorial explaining the decision:

“If this were a choice between two capable major party nominees who happened to have opposing ideas, we wouldn’t choose sides. Different voters have different concerns. But this is not a normal election, and these are not normal times. This year, character, competence and credibility are on the ballot. Given Trump’s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, so, too, is the future of America's democracy.”

USA Today got that one right.

You could make the same argument about our local congressional race this year. I argue that we need newspapers to lead the discussion on our politics and the candidates who will make important decisions.

But the trends is in the opposite direction.

Of the 100 top newspapers in the country, only 9 did not endorse in the 2004 presidential race. In 2020, 44 did not endorse a candidate and that number could climb to 60 or 70 in 2024.

In an industry where current financial challenges are well known, the acrimony of its readers and the cost in canceled subscriptions no longer seems worth it, especially to those newspapers controlled by hedge funds.

Over the years, the newspaper was regularly accused of supporting one party’s beliefs over another. But that was not true. Generally speaking, the newspaper editorial board at my newspaper endorsed many more Republican candidates than Democrats. Some readers told me they did not believe that. Others would cite only presidential endorsements.

A recent analysis on the Nieman Foundation website found that the four largest newspaper chains - including The Post-Star’s parent company - are either cutting back on endorsements or reducing the emphasis on editorials in general.

The hedge fund that owns Alden Global Capital newspapers has made it a policy to no longer endorse candidates in presidential, congressional and gubernatorial elections.

Gannett newspapers, the country’s largest newspaper chain with over 250, believes its editorial pages are “alienating readers” and “becoming obsolete” so it is shrinking the number of editorial pages it runs each week while scaling back political endorsements and even letters to the editor.

McClatchy newspapers, which was recently purchased out of bankruptcy by a hedge fund, bailed on endorsing in the 2020 presidential race and now has a policy that its 30 newspapers can only endorse if they conduct interviews with both candidates.

It’s another loss for communities because if our local newspaper is not at the center of debates, then who is?

The reality is nobody.

Joe Donahue (right) of WAMC and I will again be in conversation next week on the radio and live at Battenkill Books.

WAMC interview

Mark your calendar for Thursday, Nov. 3 and turn the dial on your radio to WAMC Roundtable (90.3 FM) where Joe Donahue will interview me about my second book “The Last American Newspaper” at 11 a.m.

It will be the first of two conversations between Joe and myself. We will also be talking newspapers at Battenkill Books in Cambridge on Wednesday, November 9 at 6 p.m.

Who is more divisive?

The New York Times tried to answer this question by using new data technologies to monitor the rhetoric of politicians since former President Donald J. Trump took office. It reviewed specific divisive words and phrases.

It found in the year and a half after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Republicans, on average, used divisive words and phrases more than twice as often as Democrats in tweets, and six times as often in emails to constituents.

Considering what we see from our own Republican congresswoman, that rings true.

Dominion voting machines

If you haven’t seen the “60 Minutes” piece on Dominion voting machines, you should check it out.

It offers a direct rebuttal from the CEO of the company about the integrity of its voting machines and software and why it is going forward with its defamation lawsuit about those who say otherwise, including Fox News.

By the way, after checking the Warren County Board of Election website, I found it uses Dominion voting machines.

Tweet of the Day

Matt Castelli @CastelliMatt

I just stepped off what should have been the debate stage, except Elise Stefanik chickened out and failed to show up. I stayed and spoke with @MyNBC5 about the issues that matter in #NY21 because I believe voters deserve to hear from the candidates. Elise Stefanik does not.

It