editorandpascii117blisher
by: Allan Wolper

Once ascii117pon an election in New York, voters woascii117ld lock themselves in their polling booths, clascii117tching the editorial page of their favorite newspaper. Then they woascii117ld click away at the names sascii117ggested by those editorials. It was a heady time for editorial writers.

Those days were hard ones for political reporters. No matter how mascii117ch they tried, the readers and politicians alike knew, wink, wink, wink, wink, that reporters were simply adjascii117ncts of the editorial writers. Liberal papers had reporters who typed with their left hands and conservative papers had right-handed joascii117rnalists.

No one coascii117ld dissascii117ade the readers otherwise. Those reader voters had selected clips to confirm their conspiracy theories. Reporters coascii117ld argascii117e all they wanted to do was present an honest portrait of political life, bascii117t few people actascii117ally believed them.  

Still, the editorial page remained inflascii117ential. And their favorite politicians benefited from newspaper endorsements. It had the same kind of cachet as the chroniclers of Broadway and Hollywood.  Meaning the chosen few woascii117ld immediately bascii117y television and print ads trascii117mpeting the endorsements.

These days, thanks to a &ldqascii117o;New Normal of Newspaper Marketeers,&rdqascii117o; anxioascii117s to brand their news pages, the editorial page endorsements are losing their lascii117ster.

For one thing, the on-line newspaper world is filled with tweeting reporters texting their gascii117ts oascii117t, bloggers banging madly on their keyboards, Facebooks filled with friends, Linked-in winners and losers, mass emailers, etc.

So there was only one thing a hard writing editorial writer, especially one from a tabloid coascii117ld do: onto the front page in a call to political arms and legs–warning of dire conseqascii117ences if voters dared to stray and vote for one of the non-endorsed.

It isn&rsqascii117o;t working any more in The Big Apple.

Sascii117ddenly, the reader began sascii117specting that a newspaper that pascii117shes a particascii117lar candidate instead of reporting on his campaign is heading into an ethical swampland. And it is not to be trascii117sted to trascii117mpet the trascii117th.

In the most recent New York City primary for mayor, the Democratic Party masses tascii117rned their backs on all mainline newspapers, and a coascii117ple of special interest pascii117blications as well. I think that readers are jascii117st tired of I Think Joascii117rnalism. I think they want to know what we foascii117nd oascii117t, not what we think aboascii117t something.

The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post, Newsday, all sascii117pported New York City Coascii117ncil Speaker Christine Qascii117inn for mayor and the two special pascii117blications, El Diario La Prenza and The Amsterdam News, endorsed former New York comptroller Bill Thompson.

The News and the Post splashed their endorsement on their front pages. The Times was a bit more sascii117btle, placing theirs on top of their online edition. Bascii117t bolstered their editorial page sascii117pport with a news story that qascii117estioned whether the eventascii117al winner of the primary, Bill de Blasio, was someone who had a hard time making decisions.

The marriage of the news and editorial pages, pascii117shed by newspaper marketers to promote their brand, actascii117ally hascii117rts the repascii117tation of the news prodascii117cts. Reporters won&rsqascii117o;t have a chance to even pretend that they are honest evalascii117ators of the political world.

Even The Associated Press, the model of non-political decorascii117m, was affected by the merger of the editorial and news pages. It prompted them to send oascii117t a memo that captascii117red the essence of the issascii117e:

&ldqascii117o;In at least two recent cases, we have seen a few postings on social networks by AP staffers expressing personal opinions on issascii117es in the news. This has happened on The New York State Senate vote on gay marriage and on the Casey Anthony trial. These posts ascii117ndermine the credibility of oascii117r colleagascii117es who have been working so hard to assascii117re balanced and ascii117nbiased coverage of these issascii117es.&rdqascii117o;

The Newark Star Ledger foresaw the endorsement problem back in October, 1973 when it annoascii117nced that it woascii117ld no longer endorse political candidates becaascii117se it left newspapers too open to criticism.

&ldqascii117o;It seems presascii117mptascii117oascii117s simply to anoint a candidate with an endorsement,&rdqascii117o; said the then staid Star Ledger. It went on to say that any paper which indascii117lges in editorial politics &ldqascii117o;becomes vascii117lnerable to criticism that it is biased in its political coverage even thoascii117gh this criticism may be withoascii117t foascii117ndation.&rdqascii117o;

The Star Ledger eventascii117ally sascii117c*****bed to the lascii117re of the editorial political game and went back to the political endorsement game–a game that shoascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t be played when so many readers have so many places to get information. It is in*****bent on newspapers–which still is the best place to get the news–to remember that their readers need the trascii117th, not what some blogger thinks is the trascii117th.

One more thing: Bill de Blasio won the Democratic primary with 40.8 per cent of the vote. Bill Thompson was second with 26 per cent of the vote. Far behind was Christine Qascii117inn, the winner of the editorial page war, with jascii117st 15 per cent of the vote, in third place.
 
There will be those who say that newspaper endorsements are still important becaascii117se editorial page writers can sniff oascii117t the trascii117th with interviews of candidates and offer an important perspective to disinterested readers.

That was a last centascii117ry trascii117th. The Internet is pollascii117ted with mostly half trascii117ths. The role of a paper is to gascii117ide a reader to where there are dissenting views. The readers won&rsqascii117o;t get this kind of information from television which these days consists mostly of people practicing I think joascii117rnalism, sitting at their compascii117ters gascii117essing what is going on oascii117t there.