« Previous | Home | Next »

Should Newspapers Still Be Taking Sides?

Time Magazine

During the 1936 presidential campaign, the Chicago Tribune, under its archconservative owner, Colonel Robert McCormick, wholeheartedly endorsed the candidacy of the Republican Alf Landon. The paper was so vehemently anti-F.D.R. that 10 days before the election, switchboard operators at the newspaper answered the phone by saying "Hello. Chicago Tribune. Only 10 days left to save the American way of life." In the next few weeks, newspapers in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania will endorse candidates for President. In fact, most of them will endorse both a Democrat and a Republican. In 2004, presidential candidates were endorsed by 418 newspapers across the country — 29% of all the papers in the U.S.

I confess that I've never quite understood why newspapers endorse presidential candidates. Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?

Posted by Editor at February 23, 2008 04:04 PM

« Previous | Home | Next »