9 ms·
To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics
by Molitor5901 2y ago
To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?
- jfoster 2y agoI would extend that to all businesses. For the sake of the business & their customers it's usually best to keep politics out of it.
- mandevil 2y agoAs long as the Post has an editorial page, with people employed to share their opinions, what are they supposed to do? Opinion and reporting are separate- famously the WSJ reporting is quite strong and their opinion section is ... often wrong- but as long as an opinion section exists that's kinda their job, to share their opinion. If you want to get rid of opinion that might be a reasonable thing (with cable news and the internet no one has a shortage of opinion these days!) but doing it in such a ham-fisted way so close to the election is not a sign of a carefully thought-out business decision, it's a sign of cowardice.
- jfoster 2y agoThey could share their opinions on the policies of each candidate. That could be great at helping people see perspectives other than their own, so that they can weigh it all up and make their own decision. Doing an endorsement is kind of the opposite of that, because it is essentially telling readers "you don't need to decide, we have done it for you."
- mandevil 2y agoCounterpoint: the biggest problem facing opinion journalism today is the competition. Actual news reporting is expensive and slow and sometimes doesn't pan out, isn't very profitable and there isn't that much of it. But you can get opinion everywhere these days- cable TV news, internet streamers, internet articles, it's everywhere. That suggests that there is actually a huge demand for highly opinionated work (and also that it is remarkably cheap to produce), but whether it's something like Daily Kos or Free Beacon or Alex Jones or Newsmax, it seems like everyone can find their own personal brand of opinion journalism that both flatters their own pre-existing opinions and at the same time molds them. Lots of narrowband broadcasting in that space, and the daily papers are really struggling with their goal of broad reach- they are getting outcompeted in each specific niche by a specialty player that caters to a much smaller, more specific set of opinions. (They try to have a diverse range of OpEd columnists, hoping that if you don't agree with Paul Krugman maybe you'll like David French, but that's a hard thing to pull off these days when your competition is just people of one specific ideological wedge.) In theory your idea would be good, except when I look at the market I don't see anyone actually succeeding at that, which suggests to me that it's not actually a very large market of consumers.
- Molitor5901 2y agoOnly in this hyper-partisan world has politics become a liability for business. If a restaurant hosted a candidate it didn't get death threats and calls for boycott 20 years ago. It's hard for some retail businesses to stay out of politics because they get dragged into it. Perhaps another way of looking at it is to not take too seriously when businesses get involved in politics.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoLet's do an extreme example. If one candidate were to say, "I will burn down the Washington Post" would you expect the Washington Post to be neutral? Seems fallacious.
- dekhn 2y agoNewspapers have several different departments- a news reporting department, which ostensibly attempts to be neutral and fair (but often isn't), and an editorial department, which is neither neutral, nor fair. The endorsement comes from the editorial side. I can't answer why we would want newspapers to endorse presidents- except that historically, newspapers played a big role in shaping public opinion (now mostly replaced by social media).
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago> How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair? Where did you get this? Every news source has some bias, journalists, editors and owners of the media house are not some ideal beings. The good ones are honest about their bias. As to endorsing a candidate, it's absolutely for the paper to decide. Endorsing a candidate might alienate some readers, not endorsing others.
- coldpie 2y agoI actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision. But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. That's a way different story from deciding to stop doing endorsements.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago[flagged]
- Molitor5901 2y agoI saw that but I'm not sure I see the "long history". From Eisenhower to Carter, then from Carter to now, that's not much of a long history of non-endorsement. The Post is taking a very strong stance here and it will be interesting to see if this stands up in 2028. The LA Times may have left the door open to future endorsements, but not the Post. Better question: Why now? What changed for them? Was it declining revenue/readers, an overhaul of ethics or process? I can't wait to read the tell all some day about these decisions.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago* 1877 to Eisenhower
- Molitor5901 2y agoYes, Thank you. Interesting.
- drewbug01 2y ago“Had”, not “has”, a long history of not endorsing candidates. They’ve been endorsing since the 80s. The proper framing is “the owners stepped in to change the policy, to mirror the same policies they had before the 80s”. Whether that’s right or wrong to do is a separate question. But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all.
- krapp 2y agoWhich is worse, a newspaper expressing an opinion or a newspaper being forbidden from expressing an opinion?
- Molitor5901 2y agoYes.
- batch12 2y agoForbidden by whom? Forbidden by its owner vs forbidden by an external party like the government are two different situations.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoGiven this context, I don't give much BOTD for the "external party".
- krapp 2y agoI'm not aware that the government has forbidden any news outlet from endorsing Kamala Harris. It would be weird if they did.
- batch12 2y agoI'm not aware of any either, just trying to understand the point you're making with your comment.
- bitshiftfaced 2y agoI think people "need" their publications to do this in the sense that the publication may worry about losing readership for not "doing their part to support the morally correct candidates." But you're right. Ideally a publication would report the objective reality and let its readers decide what to make of it.
- foogazi 2y agoThe editorial page runs on opinion - I expect them to opine
- dclowd9901 2y agoIt’s a disingenuous question: newspapers endorse presidents. That ship has sailed and it’s sailed a long time ago. The issue at hand here is what happens to objective news reporting when a rampant vindictive psychopath enters the office of the President.
- skellington 2y ago[flagged]
- maxerickson 2y agoIt's not automatically unethical for a journalist to advocate for something. I guess if they entirely stopped publishing self authored editorials it might be "neutral" to not publish a particular one. But that isn't what is happening.
- Dalewyn 2y agoA journalist's job is to journal something, nothing more and nothing less. If a purported journalist wants to influence or otherwise lead his audience somewhere, he is many things (commentator, advocate, activist, influencer, etc.) but he is not a journalist.
- ignoramous 2y ago> If a purported journalist wants to influence ... he is not a journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThat seems to just describe activism, not journalism. What makes it journalism to you - the association with a company that punishes a newspaper?
- janalsncm 2y agoThat’s a pretty low bar for “activism” in my mind. Activism is more about organizing people, organizing events, coordinating action, raising money, protesting, etc. although good journalism enables activism. The entire point of journalism is holding powerful people/groups accountable. This is why countries like China hate journalists. Big companies like “journalists” who don’t ask tough questions. But the job of journalism isn’t just to reprint a press release with slightly different phrasing.
- maxerickson 2y agoDeclaring your misunderstanding doesn't make it so. "Engineers make implements of war" or so.
- neves 2y agoThere's no neutral human being.
- willturman 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lysace 2y agoI don't know for sure, but I suspect that this phenomenon of news media endorsing political candidates is almost entirely unique to the US. Please prove me wrong.
- mongol 2y agoI can't prove you wrong, but I think political alignment of newspapers come in many flavors. Many countries have more parties than two, and as the choice ls less binary, the endorsements can be more subtle.
- arp242 2y agoMaking a big song and dance about the entire business of "endorsements" seems to be a very US thing as far as I know. I am of course not familiar with all democracies of the world, but it doesn't seem common anywhere else I've seen.
- mthoms 2y agoIt's common practice across the anglosphere (US, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ). I'm not sure about elsewhere.
- lysace 2y agoCases in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2024_Unite... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endorsements_in_2019_Australian_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endorsements_in_2019_A...
- hluska 2y agoThe Globe and Mail is a Canadian paper. Here is its history of endorsements since 1984: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-election-globe-editorial-endorsements-from-1984-to-now/article26827000/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-electi... There is an entire Wikipedia page devoted only to endorsements in the 2024 United Kingdom general election: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2024_Uni...
- frugalmail 2y ago[flagged]
- Glyptodon 2y agoI think there's arguments either way, but I also think as a certain point there is an obligation to point out that Trump is basically an anti American who probably takes more notice of a roll of toilet paper than the constitution. I'd argue that maybe it would behoove an institution of trust to make an endorsement only rarely, but it's also long been part of the means of public discourse for papers to put out opinions and endorsements. More so than that question, I think it's more obvious to ask "if you're going to have that argument, is the year Trump, the nation destroying clown, is running, the year to suddenly make a change after something like > 3 decades? Especially when it seems like your owner might be making the change because he wants to curry favor for contracts?" It's a pretty pathetic look, but I don't particularly expect any civic virtue from Bezos, so not shocked. No doubt this will be portrayed as Bezos reigning in "Democrat" conspiracies and used to normalize Trump by the denizens of that delusional universe.
- tekknik 2y agoHow is this not dead?
- anyonecancode 2y agoI think if Bezos had announced this change in policy in, say, Feb 2021, it would have landed differently.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago100%. Or even January 2024. Shutting down the operation last minute is simply suspect in so many areas.
- quesera 2y agoI think this is exactly right. I'm 100% on board with impartial reporting, with the caveats that a) endorsements are of the Opinion section, and b) the fact of the matter is that only the higher-minded news orgs would attempt impartiality -- so it's really just ceding the argument. And LATimes and WaPo endorsements almost certainly won't have an effect on this election. But, this reeks of cowardice. If you wanted to return to the journalistic standard of impartiality, that's a great thing to do when the pressure is low. Feb 2021 would have been perfect. Less than two weeks before the most contentious election in modern history? And specifically when one candidate has threatened news organizations and their owners with retribution (legal, commercial, extralegal) for stories they don't like? That's capitulation, not impartiality. If you believe in the mission of journalism, the honorable option would be to anti-endorse any candidate who threatens that mission. If you don't believe in that mission, then what are you doing operating a newspaper? Bezos is a coward.
- ein0p 2y ago[flagged]
- sbuttgereit 2y agoTo play Devil's Advocate to the Devil's Advocate... I would posit that journalistic neutrality isn't possible: and if that's the case I'd rather the journalist or publication wear their biases on their sleeve. I can read a biased story, with values very different to my own, and still draw conclusions that are still meaningful. Mind you, I would expect omissions and couching that is flawed, but understanding the thinking of those I oppose is valuable and allows me to see their blind spots (or my own for that matter). But a news organization or journalist being clear about their values and politics also disposes of the harmful notion that they've actually achieved some sort of objective reading or that they're being complete and well rounded. There's a deceptiveness in that pretense which some readers (watchers) may actually take for truth and not think more critically about what they're consuming than that.
- deepsquirrelnet 2y agoIt wouldn’t be interesting or newsworthy to me personally if they had done that. Given that editorial boards at newspapers like WaPo traditionally do, I find it notable when the billionaire owner steps in to stop them from publishing the endorsement, due to fear of retaliation from one of the candidates. To me, that’s worth knowing about.
- janalsncm 2y agoI guess we need to think about what it means to be “neutral”. If half of Americans believe the earth is flat, is the neutral stance to say it’s unclear? Or is it to figure out what the truth is? In my mind there’s a difference between journalists and pollsters. Of course with endorsements you can technically bring up the is/aught dichotomy. The facts may be what they are but that doesn’t necessitate any particular action. While this is technically true, I never see anyone complaining about the ethics of testing products and endorsing good ones. Wirecutter is basically doing the same thing with headphones and running shoes. Yet I only ever see pushback on political endorsements. In short, umpires are neutral and fair but the fact that some teams win a lot more than others doesn’t mean they’re not doing their job.
- christophilus 2y agoThat’s because if you praise a terrible toaster, life for most Americans is unaffected. If you endorse a political candidate, and nudge the election in one direction or other, roughly 50% of Americans will see that move as hostile.
- janalsncm 2y agoThe principle is the same though, whether you’re recommending candidates or toasters. Just because one has more impact than the other, doesn’t make it less ethical to investigate and recommend.
- valval 2y agoYour last sentence isn’t grounded in reality. Negatively impacting the lives of millions of people is less ethical than negatively impacting the lives of a few.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoPolitics is simply preference. The shape of the earth is not.
- 2y ago
- zmmmmm 2y agoEndorsements are published by the editorial section which is specifically separated from the rest of the newspaper so to not undermine the neutrality of the journalism in the other sections. Opinion and analysis has always been part of news publications, and plays an accepted role in adding layers of interpretation onto the raw "facts" that is crucial in making those facts interpretable by readers who aren't expert in the subject matter.
- ekianjo 2y ago> to not undermine the neutrality of the journalism in the other sections. There is no neutral publication. Of there is an editorial board there is by definition no neutrality.
- colordrops 2y ago> crucial in making those facts interpretable by readers who aren't expert in the subject matter. That's pretty charitable. In my experience most opinion and "analysis" is typically heavily biased and in service of some agenda.
- wordofx 2y ago[flagged]
- chairmansteve 2y ago[flagged]
- zmmmmm 2y ago> If trump said 1+1=2 He says things like "I wish I had general's like Hitler's" or his political opponents are the "enemy within" and he would harness the military against them if he gets in power, and that migrants are criminals. I really don't know how you can equate something as uncontroversial as "1+1=2" with such controversial and divisive statements.
- strunz 2y agoHe lies about absolutely everything, so everything he says should be met with skepticism.
- swatcoder 2y agoThe idea is that these people spend their days in the weeds, working over stories and leads, getting to know people personally, absorbing information and insight that doesn't make it to print, seeing the connections and threads between all the things they publish, and are literally professional news people the way many of us here are professional technology people who might have some insight on technology topics. You can make the case that they might be disingenuous or manipulative in sharing what they claim to be their opinions, or that their opinions reflect cultural indoctrination rather than professional assessment, etc -- and so you don't have to take their endorsements seriously. But it's not a crazy idea that they have something valuable to share for all the time they spend very close to news and politics, and it's not bad to know what their big picture view of topics and people are as they write and select stories for the rest of the paper as it helps you contextualize them in their subjectivity.
- selimthegrim 2y agoThis reminds me of when The New Republic had a bunch of staff quit en masse because the new imported editor was blatantly bullshitting them. He didn’t realize that he was talking to a bunch of professional journalists who knew exactly what being bullshit was like.
- tightbookkeeper 2y agoWas that the story they wrote about themselves?
- selimthegrim 2y agoIt may have been.
- oceanplexian 2y agoThose people working in mass media are going to have massive biases and blind spots the same way tech people do. That’s because news isn’t an accurate representation of reality, it’s representing the most extreme examples and outliers in society. If you have a group of people reading about outliers all day they aren’t going to be grounded in what ordinary people are actually experiencing.
- mperham 2y ago“He gets to be lawless while she has to be flawless.” It’s not biased to call a spade a spade.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago[flagged]
- reverius42 2y agoUntil your second paragraph I thought you were talking about putting a certain 34-count felon behind bars.
- dehrmann 2y agoMy gripe with endorsements is they imply people can't think critically for themselves.
- reverius42 2y agoSupposedly some voters are undecided. Perhaps they would be swayed by a persuasive argument; this doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t think critically. I say supposedly because I find it hard to believe the WaPo endorsement would actually sway anyone.
- 6yyyyyy 2y agoI find endorsements very valuable when voting in down-ballot elections. A good endorsement includes the reasoning behind the decision. I read the endorsements of multiple outlets and find myself agreeing more with one or the other. What's the alternative, do comprehensive research on the record of 20 candidates? I don't have time for that. Read the blurbs they write about themselves in the voter's guide? Why should I trust that, they can write anything there.
- laidoffamazon 2y agoSpiking an endorsement that's already written is not neutral either. They could have made this decision in January or years ago. They did not.
- eapressoandcats 2y agoThat’s a bit beside the point in this case. Newspapers are supposed to have a first amendment right to say whatever they want and the key concern is that Bezos spiked the editorial to curry favor with Trump.
- cryptonector 2y agoBezos own the paper, so it's _his_ first amendment right, not the editorial board's.
- eapressoandcats 2y agoSure but the concern is that he did it to appease the government which will retaliate against speech under Trump.
- danans 2y agoWhatever his reason, this isn't a first amendment issue because it's a private entity constraining its own speech, not the government.
- eapressoandcats 2y agoThe first amendment issue is that he is doing it because of fear that the government will retaliate against his other companies. A lot of folks are exhorting him to resist in order to protect the norm, but it his true that _his_ choice is caused by first amendment violations, not causing them.
- danans 2y agoI think you have the directionality backwards. Trump is not currently in office or in control of the government, therefore he doesn't have the ability to constrain Bezos' first amendment free speech rights. If Bezos chose to constrain his own speech due to some perceived threat to his companies from a possible Trump administration, that's still a private decision (and an exercise of his first amendment right to non-expresssion). To be a first amendment violation, the government has to constrain speech (via force or threat).
- metabagel 2y agoIt’s a statement of the values of the newspaper. This is what we stand for, and we are endorsing this person because of those values. It tells people about the paper and about the candidate being endorsed. The issue here is that Trump is a threat to our democratic system of government. It’s not the time to be changing policies and refusing to endorse. It’s a time for taking a stand.
- reverius42 2y agoClearly the values of the newspaper (as determined by the owner) aren’t what the employees, or many of the readers, thought they were.
- Molitor5901 2y agoOr.. at the end of the day, the newspaper is a business not a social movement. I have not seen anything about the business aspect of non-endorsement, other than perhaps the cancellations.
- UncleMeat 2y agoThe editorial board is separated from the newsroom and consistently writes persuasive opinions in the editorial page. "We think you should vote for X" is not structurally different from anything else that appears on the editorial page.
- majani 2y agoAnd it's also bad for business. I think people on either side of the aisle underestimate just how tilted the other side can get when you go against them
- unethical_ban 2y agoYour question is irrelevant. If Bezos or the leadership of the post had an ideological issue with endorsements, they should have decided that 6 months ago or one month from now. It is blatantly obvious that this decision was done solely for Bezos business interests. Ignoring this and leaning into a theoretical debate to defend the decision is insulting.
- linotype 2y agoNow do Fox News.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]