By Andy Brack
A retired reporter recently wrote something on social media that threw some for a loop:
“A lot of my friends, my true ones, are getting bent out of shape about major newspaper editorial boards choosing not to endorse presidential candidates. As an ex-newspaper guy and longtime fan of journalism and knowing what’s going on in the world, I kind of agree with the decisions not to endorse.”
To be clear, we wholeheartedly disagree. But let him continue:
“Editorial board endorsements of political candidates, particularly national ones, don’t mean crap, don’t move the needle and only serve to make editorial writers feel more important and powerful than they really are.”
Oh, my. As if editorial writers really feel they have any real power.
What the good ones do feel, actually, has nothing to do with power. They feel an intense social responsibility to democracy and the need to keep it strong. Newspapers endorse candidates to give people unfettered opinions about which candidates in races will be most faithful to democratic ideals and be responsive to constituents – which will do a better job, based on past stories, insights gleaned from interviews and a look at candidate records.
Voters often don’t have time to scroll through pages of documents or mundane campaign position papers. But it’s necessary for good editors to fulfill their watchdog role as the Fourth Estate and keep politicians running for office honest.
They need to make cogent arguments whether someone who has been in office for many years needs to stay or go. They need to call out a fascist when the jackboot fits. They need to analyze the political environment and share informed views on why one path for the state or nation is better than another.
Editorials matter. To fail to meet the social responsibility of endorsing candidates and giving cogent insights about what’s happening in the political world is to fail to give important tools to voters as they make judgments about which candidates to support. If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard it countless times – voters saying they support a candidate, not the party. And while this does not seem to reflect reality for many voters, it does for discerning ones.
The good thing about an editorial opinion is that a voter can ignore it. Just as they could – and should – ignore all of the misinformation, disinformation, lies, fake news and more that infects social media. In fact, the rise of social media is the primary culprit in America’s increasing polarization and tribalism. Listening to only one side of an argument is never a good thing in a democracy. And conflating viewpoints as if they are news is no better – the editorial page is specifically an opinion section, although more and more readers don’t seem to understand that.
What is good for democracy is for informed information gatherers – editorial writers – to do their jobs, vetting candidates and calling it like they see it.
More newspapers need editorial pages. More newspapers need to endorse candidates, not fewer. More newspapers need to have courage, instead of losing it to the billionaire behemoths of private enterprise that now own outlets like The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
Otherwise they will become less relevant by doing the very thing that they’re not supposed to do – muzzling themselves.
The Washington Post has made a big deal about how “democracy dies in darkness.” But after refusing to shine a bright light on the choice voters face in the 2024 presidential race, it might want to change its slogan to “The Washington Post dies in its own darkness.”
Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report and the Charleston City Paper. Have a comment? Send it to feedback@statehousereport.com.
