Monday, November 01, 2004
Newspaper endorsements
I'm not really read up on the literature on the effect of newspaper endorsements, but my guess is they have a significant effect on races low on the ballot (where info is scarce, even among the most informed voters), and virtually no effect on presidential elections (if you are undecided a week before the election, you probably aren't a reader of your newspaper's editorial page).
So if presidential endorsements are interesting at all, it is because they say something about the media. It is well known that most reporters and editors are liberal, relative to the public, but that most publishers are fairly conservative (they own businesses, after all). Because endorsements are rather unambiguous statements of a newspaper's leaning, if a publisher is ever to impose his preferences, one expect it will be through endorsements. But there is another factor: attentive partisan readers may be ticked off if the newspaper backs the other guy, so in red areas, expect the newspaper to back the red candidate for economic reasons, and vice versa.
So endorsements probably reflect a tug of war between readers, publishers, and editors, in declining order of influence. Many endorsements are clearly boring, poorly constructed efforts to please the first two groups; my native newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, had one of those supporting Bush this year; it was so pathetic that they got (and printed, perhaps as revenge against the publisher) a raft of unusually incisive letters tearing the endorsement to shreds.
The most interesting endorsements are those that go against type. A newspaper that backed Gore but now wants Bush; a paper that backed Bush in 2000 but now wants Kerry to win---those carry meaningful information. They say that either the publisher or editor couldn't take it anymore (damn the readers!) or that the readers have drifted, and the paper is keeping up (or, more prosaically, that the newspaper is under new management).
Editor and Publisher has a running tally of endorsements. Kerry is up 208-190 (with a circulation of 20.7 to 14.5 million). But what's most interesting is the number of switchers. I count 41 papers that backed Bush in 2000, but now support Kerry. I find only 8 running from Gore to Bush.
How many papers sticking with Bush wish they could endorse Kerry, but fear a reader backlash? My guess is quite a few, including the Houston Chronicle. Oh well. Not everyone is a profile in courage.
So if presidential endorsements are interesting at all, it is because they say something about the media. It is well known that most reporters and editors are liberal, relative to the public, but that most publishers are fairly conservative (they own businesses, after all). Because endorsements are rather unambiguous statements of a newspaper's leaning, if a publisher is ever to impose his preferences, one expect it will be through endorsements. But there is another factor: attentive partisan readers may be ticked off if the newspaper backs the other guy, so in red areas, expect the newspaper to back the red candidate for economic reasons, and vice versa.
So endorsements probably reflect a tug of war between readers, publishers, and editors, in declining order of influence. Many endorsements are clearly boring, poorly constructed efforts to please the first two groups; my native newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, had one of those supporting Bush this year; it was so pathetic that they got (and printed, perhaps as revenge against the publisher) a raft of unusually incisive letters tearing the endorsement to shreds.
The most interesting endorsements are those that go against type. A newspaper that backed Gore but now wants Bush; a paper that backed Bush in 2000 but now wants Kerry to win---those carry meaningful information. They say that either the publisher or editor couldn't take it anymore (damn the readers!) or that the readers have drifted, and the paper is keeping up (or, more prosaically, that the newspaper is under new management).
Editor and Publisher has a running tally of endorsements. Kerry is up 208-190 (with a circulation of 20.7 to 14.5 million). But what's most interesting is the number of switchers. I count 41 papers that backed Bush in 2000, but now support Kerry. I find only 8 running from Gore to Bush.
How many papers sticking with Bush wish they could endorse Kerry, but fear a reader backlash? My guess is quite a few, including the Houston Chronicle. Oh well. Not everyone is a profile in courage.
