Here I am hard at work -- taking notes, recording audio, and shooting video -- in an endorsement interview in January 2008. This is actually probably the only photo that exists of me doing this.
I’ve seen some mealy-mouthed excuses and lazy cowardice in my late lamented newspaper career, but I don’t recall when I’ve seen anything to match the Chicago Sun-Times’ decision to abandon political endorsements, which was announced in the paper today.
You can read the whole sorry mess at the paper’s website, but I’m going to copy some passages here in order to take issue with the painfully flawed logic in the tortured editorial.
But first, I want to place this within the context of the recent history of newspapers ceasing to be run by editors with both feet firmly planted in their communities, willing to engage those communities on every level, and being run instead by corporate bean-counters. Not to put too fine a point on it.
In the declining days of the Knight Ridder empire, after the emperor had capriciously moved the capital from Rome (Miami) to San Jose (Constantinople), I attended the last official meeting of KR editorial page editors. It was in San Jose.
EPE meetings were always odd affairs. When publishers met, they had common business to discuss, since money matters were run by corporate. Even the newsroom editors had things to discuss when they met, because of some shared resources, and the fact that they ran big, expensive departments that were intimately tied in with what was happening in the financial side. But since the KR value of not telling papers what to do editorially was absolute (one of the very good things about Knight Ridder, when it was good), there wasn’t much to talk about when we eccentrics from the editorial side were brought in. We got to meet, and talk shop, and hear about interesting things people with similar jobs to ours were doing, but there wasn’t really much point for KR to convene us, as there was nothing we did together, and that’s how we liked it — which was why we only had the meetings about every five year.
But at this last meeting, Tony Ridder had a suggestion. And I won’t call Tony “the emperor” in this context, because he in no way tried to make us do this. He was just making… a suggestion. And it was this: He didn’t think we should endorse in presidential elections. He had two reasons: One, we should be concerning ourselves with local issues, not getting distracted by Washington stuff. Second, from what he could tell, the only thing such endorsements did was make at least half of the readership mad at the paper, and newspapers could ill afford that.
A couple of more junior, less-secure editors made polite noises in response, but others among us explained in pretty strong terms why we had no interest in following that suggestion. I was one of the latter, partly because I never felt insecure in my job right up to the day I got canned, but mainly because we thought it was an awful idea. Especially from a South Carolina perspective. Yeah, maybe you should sit it out if you were in California, but in South Carolina, presidential politics — at least during the nominating process — is big local news. (Of course, I had no argument with the assertion that a newspaper’s main value is its local coverage, and its editorials on local subjects.)
Beyond that, I think there is nothing more lazy or cowardly for a newspaper to do than to fail to express its preference for a candidate — when it has a preference — for public office. If you don’t endorse, you might as well not express opinions about anything. We live in a republic, and our readers can’t act on most of the things we opine about. That power to act is delegated to elected representatives. So… we’re going to express opinions about why this should happen, and that shouldn’t happen, for four years, on subjects regarding which our readers are little more than spectators (sure, they can write letters and such, but it’s still an indirect involvement), but then, when readers actually have to make the critical decision of who will be making those decisions for the next four years (or two, or six), we’re going to clam up?
I say “cowardly,” because Tony was right about one thing: There is nothing a newspaper can do that will make people madder at it than to endorse a candidate. So the quickest way out for the timid is not to endorse. Not all editors have the gumption for it — not to mention the business-side types. (Why, back in MY day as an editor, we made people hate our guts, and we LIKED it, dagnabbit!)
Also, if you were to drop any sort of endorsement, it would be the presidential — because the paper’s franchise is local. But here’s the value of doing it anyway: Most of a newspaper’s endorsements — to state legislature, city council, clerk of court, etc. — involve people about whom the typical reader knows nothing. Not so with the presidential, the reader being bombarded with information about the candidates. Thus, the reader is more empowered to judge the quality of the board’s reasoning when it reads a presidential endorsement — and can use that perspective to judge the degree to which it trusts the paper’s reasoning on the more obscure offices. And that’s important.
But I’m getting ahead of myself in arguing the purposes of endorsements — indeed, of expressing opinions at all. I’ll make the rest of my argument in response to the specifics of the Sun-Times editorial itself.
I won’t attack each and every paragraph, just the ones that most betray a lack of understanding of what endorsements, or for that matter editorials in general, are all about. Let’s start with the fourth graf:
Those days are gone. Most good newspapers today attempt to appeal to the widest possible readership, including people of every political persuasion, by serving up the best and most unbiased news coverage possible. They want to inform you, not spin you.
“Not spin you.” Wow. A spin doctor is someone paid to present only information that favors his client, and to obscure information that does not. Is that really how you’ve been treating your readers during the 71 years you’ve been doing endorsements? Really? Well, shame on you. But that certainly isn’t my understanding of what an editorial board is for. You express opinions, as an institution, because you respect your readers. Your newsroom is dedicated to giving them all the objective information it is within the power of its resources to gather and present — pro, con, and every other point along the spectrum. The editorial page is where you acknowledge that “who, what, where, when” are not enough for the reader to have a full understanding of the issue. The editorial page is where you go into deeper dimensions; it’s where you treat the reader like an adult human being, not as some fainting violet that’s going to wilt in the face of an honest opinion. It’s where you provide your best take on the issue, as well as a variety of other opinions, giving particular precedence to the opinions that oppose your own. And by engaging with that, the reader is given grist for his own intellectual mill, so that when he makes up his own mind, whether he agrees with you or not, his opinion will be stronger and better-considered for having been tested against other carefully-considered ideas. If that’s what you call “spin,” I feel sorry for you, because whatever experience you’ve gained from running an editorial board in the past has been lost on you.
Oh, and finally, if you only want to inform in the narrowest sense, why not do away with the editorial pages? Entirely. Next graf:
With this in mind, the Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board will approach election coverage in a new way. We will provide clear and accurate information about who the candidates are and where they stand on the issues most important to our city, our state and our country. We will post candidate questionnaires online. We will interview candidates in person and post the videos online. We will present side-by-side comparisons of the candidatesā views on the key issues. We will post assessments made by respected civic and professional groups, such as the Chicago Bar Associationās guide to judicial candidates.
So… let me see if you have this right — you’re going to provide only uncontestable facts, plus ratings and opinions from OTHER people, but you’re not going to dare offer any interpretation of your own? This is worse than I thought. It’s one thing not to say, “We pick THIS guy,” but to refrain from saying, when warranted, “this guy’s position on this particular issue is awful, and here’s why,” you are once again abdicating everything that an editorial page is for.
I mean, if the above is what the editorial board is going to be doing, what the hell is your newsroom doing? Because all of the things you listed are completely within the newsroom’s purview, and require no editorial license. Next graf:
What we will not do is endorse candidates. We have come to doubt the value of candidate endorsements by this newspaper or any newspaper, especially in a day when a multitude of information sources allow even a casual voter to be better informed than ever before.
Yep, that’s right. Readers are drinking information from a firehose. Which is why it is more critical than ever for a serious medium to say, here, to the best of our ability to discern after many years of observing these things professionally, are some ways to make sense out of all this stuff being thrown at you. In addition — and this may be both the strongest reason to do endorsements, and the point that is most at odds with your newfound, excessive humility — you have access to the candidates that your readers don’t have, in spite of all that repetitive, superficial information flowing past their ears. You can, on behalf of your readers, sit down with candidates and question them extensively. It may be unfashionable to acknowledge than an experienced editor has expertise to share, but at least you can admit that you have access that gives you a basis for decision that the reader doesn’t have. You should express what you think, with ample information to back it up, and let the reader make up his mind whether he would reach the same conclusions. Which is a thousand times better than the kind of fodder for thought that he’ll get from a 30-second ad paid for by a superPAC.
As a professional, non-partisan (and I think you ARE saying here that you’re not partisan; in which case I’m proud of you there) observer with rare access, you have an obligation to share with your readers the kind of insight they won’t get from any other source — especially from the self-serving politicians, whose endorsements might easily be based in the desire to get a job in the administration of the successful candidate, or on something even more unsavory. The thing is, you HAVE an opinion regarding the suitability of a candidate, 99 percent of the time — if your brain is fully functioning. Not to share that opinion with your readers is inexcusable.
Now, the worst paragraph so far, which is so awful, I’m going to consider it in two parts. First, the less bad part:
Research on the matter suggests that editorial endorsements donāt change many votes, especially in higher-profile races.
Is that what you really think an endorsement is about? Yes, of course, it’s gratifying if a majority of voters agrees with you. But you are not a political consultant. Your job isn’t to get anyone elected. Your job is to share with readers the best you’ve got on every level — simple facts, analysis, perspective and yes, your informed opinion. Don’t hold anything back. What happens after you share it is up to the reader/voter.
Another school of thought, however ā often expressed by readers ā is that candidate endorsements, more so than all other views on an editorial page, promote the perception of a hidden bias by a newspaper, from Page One to the sports pages.
This is the biggest canard of all. Read your own words again. The only way you have a “hidden bias” IS IF YOU’RE HIDING IT!!!!! Everybody has a “bias.” Everybody has opinions, if they are human. Everybody has somebody they’d rather see elected than someone else. The editorial page is the one place where you level with the readers and tell them what that “bias” is. Then you have empowered them to judge everything else in the paper, and whether you’re being fair or not, by your honestly stated opinion. This is basic, people! This is Editorial 101! Do you even have any idea why you get up and come in to work every morning? Apparently not, because what you just said is the sort of thing I would expect to hear from someone who not onlyĀ hasĀ never spent a day working at a newspaper (much less on an editorial board), but has never spent any time seriously thinking about it.
Perhaps you’ve noticed by now that I have strong opinions on this subject. And notice that I’m sharing them with you. That’s because I don’t have, and have never had, a “hidden bias.” I give it all to you straight.
A bit further down:
We pride ourselves in offering a smart editorial page that is deeply engaged in vital civic issues, and we will continue on that course. We have in the last year singled out for special attention a handful of issues on which we believe great progress must be made for the sake of Chicagoās future, beginning with the quality of our public schools, the health of our local economy, the cityās and stateās shaky finances, the crying need for alternatives to prison for low-level nonviolent offenders, and the integrity of our political system. We want a cleaner lake and a cleaner river. We want safer parks and streets. We want an end to daily traffic gridlock.
Weāll keep pushing.
You will? Because I couldn’t tell for sure that you were going to express actual opinions on those subjects, much less offer opinions that “push.” I was worried that you were going to write some “he said, she said” on those subjects the way you’re planning to do on endorsements. Singling out “for special attention” issues “on which we believe great progress must be made” doesn’t tell me that you’re going to describe what progress looks like. But I will remain hopeful, even though you give me a thin basis. (You’re against traffic gridlock? Well, aren’t you stepping out on a limb…)
Can it get worse? Yep:
But our goal, when weāre not too much on our high horse, is to inform and influence your thinking, not tell you what to do.
Oh, you’re just so humble it’s a wonder you don’t sink right through the floor. “Not tell you what to do.” Really? Really? Is that what you think it’s all about? Then, once again, why do you have an editorial page?
Any newspaper editor who thinks what he’s doing in expressing opinions is telling readers “what to do,” and actually expects them to DO it, is a candidate for protective restraint. He can’t be trusted crossing the street alone.
The editorial page is, once again, the place where you treat readers like grown-ups. You have enough respect for them to know they’re going to make up their own minds. But it takes even greater respect to understand that when you tell them how you’ve made up your minds, they are big enough to take it, and study on it, and pass judgment for themselves on what you have to say. The more arguments you are exposed to, the harder you have to think to make up your own mind, and the better your conclusions are in the end. It’s the same with readers. They aren’t idiots. Engage them. Respect them. Tell them what you think; don’t hold back.
Because if you don’t, you are insulting them by expecting them to believe that you have no opinions. And if you treat them like that, I don’t see why they should read your newspaper at all.
Related Posts
Like I’m going to read all that.
I want a newspaper that will give me the news, not their opinion.
Christianity Today magazine recently came out with its lead article on red state vs. blue state partisan rancor, and the headline was encased in purple.
An editorial page that won’t editorialize? What worth is that? I don’t have to agree with an editor to be interested in the opinion. That only happens when I discover that the editor is consistently unable to argue rationally. I despise papers like “Today” that offer pro and con editorials that are written by people who are so partisan that they’re entirely predictable.
As the son of a newspaper editor and later a publisher….BRAVO Brad!
Wow, just wow. This calls for several more cups of coffee while I contemplate the demise of the fourth estate.
That is a lot of words. I do think newspapers should endorse but it’s not the end of the world if they don’t. But Brad’s life as a journalist gives him a different perspective from mine.
Those editors have just signed away their reason for being. It’s appalling, and infuriating.
Newspaper jobs (the few that are left) are wasted on the wrong people. These people are NOT earning their pay.
You may find this hard to believe, but I actually held myself back a bit in writing this post. My first thought in contemplating this new Sun-Times was a line spoken by Kevin Dillon in the movie Heaven Help Us. His character is in a theater gazing up at the plastic version of Elvis that Hal Wallis presented, and he says, “Jesus, what’d they do to Elvis? Cut his balls off, or something?”
But I thought better of it, deciding to go with something slightly less visceral.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of the sort of careful, restrained, discerning judgment that you should expect from a seasoned professional…
Brad: ON a different subject: two items caught my eye on today’s Money page in The State. The “$25 Billion mortgage settlment offer: Democrat Attorneys General will meet with Washington officials in Chicago to learn about the new plan. Then Republican Attorneys General will be notified.”
HUH?? What ever happened to governing All The People ? I don’t think I have ever heard of anything more egregious.
Item 2: The HELP program, about foreclosure assistance. We are stepping in to give money to people who can’t pay their housing costs? Is this temporary or permanent?
Just wondering…
Jackie, do you have links to those two items? I don’t have the dead-tree version of the paper with me, and links would help me get to the items to which you refer.
“These people are NOT earning their pay.”
Since the newspapers are in the business of selling advertisements and subscriptions what impact do endorsements have on achieving those specific objectives?
It used to be that people read the paper and either agreed or disagreed with the editorial positions (or ignored them altogether) in order to get the news, sports, comics, crossword puzzles, etc. In most cities and towns it was a monopoly (or duopoloy). Now we can get all those components for “free” in an a la carte manner – and we can get it faster, without limitations on space. I can can more information and more opinion in one day from sites like AndrewSullivan than I would get in a month of The State.
What the internet has exposed is that the traditional old school editorial is a dinosaur. A printed editorial page like The State’s, buried in the back, not even published every day, and with no evidence of demonstrating any real influence in the community has no real hope of survival. The Sun-Times appears to be making a business decision driven by one key objective: selling ads and gaining readers. It’s a pragmatic approach to the reality of the upheaval that has occurred in the industry. It may be futile but it sure seems to be more proactive than the approach The State has taken over the past five years (cut, cut, cut, more of the same, more of the same).
In your own way, you’re saying what I said: This is a decision made by bean-counters rather than by editors who are firmly rooted in, and devoted to serving, their community.
Basically, these supposedly hard-minded business people are destroying the one thing that gives the brand value, the one thing that gives the entity a mind, a soul, an anima. The one think that gives you a reason to go to THIS medium rather than some other plug-in-and-crank aggregator of information.
It’s a decision made by people who don’t understand what a newspaper (and by newspaper, I mean an institution that presents news to a community and convenes conversations about that community’s issues, regardless of whether it’s printed on paper or not) is, and what makes it worth subscribing to.
They think they have their eyes on the future, that they’re being pragmatic and sensible, but what they’ve embraced is actually just a form of death.
Think I need to print this one out, save a copy on my computer, post it on my office wall and refer to all of them once a week.
Thanks for the wisdom.
One rather pathetic passage I did not comment on was this: “Most good newspapers today attempt to appeal to the widest possible readership, including people of every political persuasion, by serving up the best and most unbiased news coverage possible.”
No, people. That’s not the latest thing. That’s the formula newspapers hit on by the middle of the 20th century, if not earlier. It was the all-things-to-all people approach, that worked while newspapers were a monopoly, while they could be THE paper, and make oodles of money doing it. It’s Oldthink. It remains a fine approach for a newsroom (if you still have the resources to be a complete source of news, which would make you an outlier today), but it leaves no place for an editorial board.
The one good legacy, in an editorial sense, of that period is nonpartisanship. Papers are right to pride themselves on not being shills for parties. They are right to take pride in thinking fairly about all sides of issues and candidates and then picking a position, as opposed to slavishly following a party line. Following a party line was as bad as what the Sun-Times has hit upon — just another way of avoiding the hard work of discernment that is the editor’s obligation to the community.
“and by newspaper, I mean an institution that presents news to a community and convenes conversations about that communityās issues,”
Unfortunately, I think you used the wrong tense of the verb “presents”. And there aren’t conversations about issues on the editorial page of The State. There are proclamations that show a particular bias (like Cindi’s column today that had the requisite slam on Mark Sanford’s views on school vouchers – you know, those vouchers that have never existed — except in the home state of the guy The State endorsed for President.
But if it weren’t for “bean counters”, editors wouldn’t have a place to go to work. I’m beginning to think that editors have a little ego problem within the newspaper business.
Dang Doug. Does EVERYTHING have to be about the business of making money? If the paper makes a little less but informs more isn’t that a good thing?
And herein lies the biggest rub I have with libertarianism. It’s always about market forces. Market forces just are not very efficient when dealing with ALL costs. Not that I find the endorsement a particularly great loss but it’s a small loss driven by market forces. Seems to me libertarianism is a very flawed philosophy simply because it utterly fails to take into account all costs and benefits. Which is why I left the party many years ago.
“That’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
The Sun-Times is the second string paper anyway. The Trib is where it’s at.
@bud
It’s called a business not a charity. How many businesses have you worked for that didn’t attempt to maximize profit? Profits turn into expansion which turns into more jobs.
Sorry, comrade.
“How many businesses have you worked for that didnāt attempt to maximize profit?”
I’m guessing several, then quit once he found out how much the owner was making.
Sadly, in Doug’s world profit is everything. Pollution, safety and yes jobs be damned.
@bud
Where did I say anything about those items? They are all regulated now. Sometimes too much which reduces the capital businesses have to create jobs.
It all comes down to someone trying to create an artificial ceiling on other people’s value. Why do you get to decide what a person is worth?
If it was easy to be rich, everyone would do it. Some people have skills, others don’t. I don’t complain when I have to pay a plumber to fix my sink.
The reader who brought the Sun-Times editorial to my attention wrote to me today after reading this post, “I don’t believe that in all of your writings I have ever seen you so upset with so much in such a severe way as this…”
Here’s my explanation: This post probably read more like an internal memo of the sort I sent in-house at the newspapers I worked at than what I usually write for public consumption.
I devoted 35 years of my life to newspapers, the last 15 years on the editorial board of The State. I hate to see a newspaper just abdicate responsibility like that. I don’t get to serve my community in that way any more, but they still have the opportunity… and they’re throwing it away.
@Brad
What should The State do, then? Have you articulated a plan to save the paper?
I agree 100%.. the website is a jumbled mess.
As for the printed version, the first thing I would do it put the main editorial on the front page.
Wow, Doug — you’re even more hard-core than I am about editorial…
That’s a fascinating idea, you know. British newspapers are much more upfront about their editorials — they in fact call them “leaders,” and The Economist leads the magazine (which they still call a “newspaper”) with them. The cover is always taken from the main leader.
There’s a similar approach in Canada, as the EPE of the Toronto Star once explained to me. Editorial plays a much more front-and-center role than in this country.
The Sun-Times is sadly trying to catch up with journalism circa 1950. I think editorial needs to be bolder, and play a more prominent role. It’s risky, but hey — newspapers are dying anyway. They might as well go out SAYING something…
Yep. But the first step involves my having the money to buy it. I sketched out my plan roughly in a column in 2006 (which some people liked, and some really didn’t). There’s not much to add, except that since then I’ve learned a lot more about new media that I could put to work.
The challenges would be greater now, because the retail advertising market has shrunk so much since then. The good news is that buying the paper would cost less up-front now. I wrote that column before the disastrous year of 2006, when the bottom fell out of advertising (for everybody — newspapers, radio, TV, etc.).
I don’t want to beat up on my friends there — they’re trying very hard — but the online product, and particularly the mobile one, could use VAST improvement. In terms of content-related items I would add to the plan, those would top the list.
The great challenge would remain generating enough revenue to keep the outfit going after my imaginary fortune runs out. Until it DID run out, I would try every promising idea that I see anywhere in the country, and hire people from outside the industry who have expertise the paper could use. I’d strive for the kinds of synergies that Tony Ridder had HOPED for in moving KR to Silicon Valley, but which didn’t happen as needed…
I appreciated your post here very much, and kept a copy as well.
If and when The State does go down, this community will be in real trouble. Now we basically only have Ms. Scoppe and Warren Bolton as incisive, independent voices speaking into this community. We would be left with very little when they go.
Uh, once again, a newspaper jettisons one of the few things that makes it a unique product.
@Herb and Burl–Yes. Surely something can be done?
Why would The State going down be that big of a deal? It’s been going downhill for years, I dropped it years ago and haven’t missed it at all. Everything I want to read about is already available on line through several different sources.
Kathryn, I don’t know; Brad will have to speak to that. I do know that there are very few independent observers of, for example, national food policy; most are industry representatives. We must have journalists who do their homework and raise the right questions.
To me, a lot of the problem lies in the fact that people are not really reading in depth, and certainly not listening to all sides of complex issues.
I would never claim to have a broad understanding of the field of journalism, not by a long shot, but ever since I moved here 10 years ago it just seemed to me that the editorial team Brad had put together was superb–better than anything I had ever seen before. At the very least we need what is left.
I agree with you, Mr. W.
I recently discovered that the Lexington (SC) Chronicle also refrains from making official endorsements, but their reporting stance gives one a fairly decent view of their real opinions.