Should Local News Orgs Endorse Candidates?
Decatur Metro | October 13, 2009Last Friday, the AJC announced a drastic change in its editorial content: it would no longer be offering endorsements of local political candidates. That means no Atlanta mayor endorsement this year, no governor endorsement next year, and so on.
We have heard from readers — and we agree — that you don’t need us to tell you how to vote. What readers tell us they need is information on who the candidates are, what they have done and what they want to do in the new job.
That world has changed, steadily and more rapidly in recent years. We see our role now as providing you with information to help you make decisions — and not trying to make them for you. This is consistent with our move earlier this year to make the editorial pages more balanced — offering a wide array of opinions.
This morning, Creative Loafing, speaking through its urban politico reporter Thomas Wheatley, replied to the change. To put it succinctly, CL’s official response was “Horsehockey!”.
While this sounds very forward-thinking and probably could be spun as “bold new thinking” in NewspaperLand, we think it’s hogwash.
The explanation the paper gave for its decision to quit endorsing just doesn’t jibe. The paper can still provide information about the candidates’ stances on the issues — while issuing endorsements of its own. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Perhaps the true reason the paper is giving up on endorsements has something to do with the AJC’s attempt to render the paper devoid of any opinion that could offend anyone.
What do you think? Is the AJC’s move to suspend political endorsements something to be hailed or derided? And here’s my own follow-up to that – if the AJC is now only in the business of presenting “facts”, who’s got the clout to pick up and lead the Atlanta conversation?
Latest from Decaturish
Wheatley’s got it going on. It’s a cop out.
Thinking people want to know what thinking people are thinking. When I’m considering candidates, especially in more local races where lead time and scrutiny are less than in the presidential race, I look to the people I know are paying attention and understand the big picture — people in business, neighbors with a similar political bent, neighbors with an opposing political bent, civic movers and shakes, people at church, whatever.
As he says, making endorsements doesn’t preclude them from providing comprehensive candidate information. They’re mutually exclusive. Give ‘em hell, TW.
The AJC continues their descent to irrelevancy. Actually, I think they are there now.
I have a larger theory on these journalistic troubles, but adding them to the post above just seemed to muddy the waters. Let me know what you think.
There have always been two basic ways of disseminating information: story-telling and conversations. For years, the only one of these that could survive as a credible business model was the former. It had tinges of “conversation”, like editorials and letters to the editor, but for the most part, it was all about the storytelling.
WIth the advent of the interweb, it’s obvious that the conversation side of info distribution has taken off. And in many ways, conversation is much cheaper (if not necessarily easier) to produce than a story. However, newspapers obviously have old business models built the other way around. So they support conversation with stories, which is much more expensive. Also, they’re relying on their storytellers (aka journalists) to lead conversations…something that they may not be naturally inclined to do.
What everyone else said.
Let’s ask Henry Grady and Ralph McGill what THEY think about this.
I think anyone who publishes has an editorial point of view. It’s wimpy, IMO, to stop short of an endorsement.
… the AJC’s attempt to render the paper devoid of any opinion that could offend anyone. If that’s their objective, they need to try harder. They are derided daily for being a “pinko commie rag” or some similar anachronistic deluded insult.
How sheepish does the AJC think people are? Certainly, they don’t think that a Op-Ed endorsement is perceived as an order to their readers. I subscribe the WSJ for its high quality reporting and even occasionally read their neofascist page despite how ridiculous it is.
And AJC haters, I don’t think the paper has ever been close to a journalist national gold standard. But it is silly to assert that their current troubles are a function of the editorial board’s collective political position or the perceived political bias. Craiglist is slowly killing the newspaper business model. Papers are committing suicide through editorial positions.
I have to respond, Brad. I think the Atlanta Constitution was a very fine paper when I began reading it lo these many years ago (about 1987.)
Oh, Brad, of course the Journal and Constitution – the parents of our current USAtlanta – were. Under Grady and McGill, it was the voice of the New South – in fact, Grady was one of the developers of the concept of the New South and McGill was on the cutting edge of the civil rights movement. The AJC and its predecessors have a storied history (no pun intended)- at least stretching from 1880 until the mid-1990s.
Nelliebelle and Parker, thanks for the perspective. I was not reading the AJC in its glory days. My local rag was the SF Chronicle in the late ’80’s and ’90’s. Surprisingly, for such a polished city, the Chronicle was awful (IMHO) far inferior to the paper of my youth the Charlotte Observer. I wish the AJC had the teeth and content of the past.
IMO, storytelling and conversation each have a critical role in a community of engaged, thinking voters.
The editorial pages have always provided–and ideally, led–conversation. Nowadays conversation is also available elsewhere for the rapidly growing segment of the community comfortable interacting online. But the newspaper’s editorial section should still be the place where the conversation reliably begins with the stories that have been told, i.e., the facts as that paper has understood and reported them.
I agree with PC that anyone publishing has an editorial viewpoint. and I believe that for a local paper, especially the most important thing is how clearly and eloquently it articulates and substantiates its editorial stance, regardless of what it is. Nobody who is using their brain considers editorial endorsements to be instructions about how to vote. We don’t get to instruct each other about that in the U.S.A. Instead, endorsements provide a starting point (or continuing point) for those of us madly scrambling to identify relevant issues and sift through local candidates so we can make rational voting decisions. Whether or not we agree with the paper, it’s helpful to know what its editors make of the situation.
IMO, the AJC is trying to pretend they don’t have an editorial stance, as indicated earlier by the “move to…make the editorial pages ‘more balanced’…” If they were really seeking to provide balance–instead of trying to avoid offending subscribers–they would offer paired, contrasting endorsements (along with rationales), instead of simply abdicating their responsibility to help lead and stimulate very important contemplations and conversations.
smalltowngal,
I agree with what you say. However, I think it is important to note that the vast majority of voters are neither “engaged”, nor “thinking,” therefore they likewise do not “use their brain.” Don’t get lulled into a false sense of reality by thinking that the people who read these blogs and engage in political conversations are indicative of the average voter. The average voter makes no room for analysis and intellect in his/her voting decision.
I certainly agree with you guys, but I’m not sure we can just dismiss all the folks that don’t follow the political scene as closely as us addicts as non-thinkers.
All those people have votes too…if they choose to go to the voting booth. And isn’t it possible that an AJC endorsement is just plain easier to pick up than going door-to-door, like Scott suggested?
Definitely don’t dismiss them as non-thinkers. You have to accept that the non-thinkers have votes, too, and act accordingly. That’s what (both) parties have been doing increasingly for sometime.
So the question is, if you are supposed to be offering an unbiased, balanced reporting of news, and you know that the majority of voters will look at your endorsement as the “key” to how to vote, should you continue to give an endorsement and maintain journalistic credibility?
Even that has lots of faulty assumptions!
I don’t think that’s what I was getting at, DM. Endorsements on the part of the AJC are an important civic function, as are the endorsements of other sources, because they provide a public display of comparative analysis. Candidates going door to door shaking hands provides voters with raw information, but that content still needs to be assessed in context with plenty of competing content. Endorsements assist in that endeavor.
Its an abdication of the Fourth Estate.
Why the AJC executives believe that being bland and bereft of political opinion is a marketing plus is beyond me. How many times do they want to reinvent themselves as USA Today?
One of the most disturbing aspects of American culture is the homoginization that seems to advance daily, yet the AJC insists upon giving away it soul and its voice. Ralph McGill was a courageous editor. Many reporters must have been inspired by him and wanted to work for such a vital newspaper. Many more Americans were inspired by Atlanta’s leadership in the Civil Rights movement, and wanted to be associated with this dynamic place. I suppose if Julia Wallace was the publisher, she would have muzzled McGill. Does management not like being in the newspaper business? Isn’t publishing a paper all about finding and telling the truth?
The local coverage, the business section and the arts coverage are cut to the bare bones. The national coverage is from the NY Times and AP. For years the AJC management has worked towards a goal of becoming a “quick read”. Well, congratulations – As the AJC marches towards irrelevancy, I spend less time reading the local paper than ever in my life.
“We have heard from readers — and we agree — that you don’t need us to tell you how to vote.” These must be the same readers who told them it was important to have more color graphics, better comics and those useless indecies. The paper is a few pages long. Who needs an index! And this is the same AJC management who believed that making those changes was going to reposition the paper! No doubt Cox management believes they’ve chosen a path that will broaden their readership. Unfortunately they’ve chosen to become the most common denominator paper, and that decision is not bearing fruit. The paper would be better served by having some distinguishing characteristic. Anything. Throwing away their political voice is hardly a way to distinguish the paper or build a solid reputation for revealing the truth.
I disagree with most here on this. The current landscape of “news” is really the story of entertainment and opinion vs. credibility. Fox and MSNBC have gone with the former, while the traditional news media has stayed with the latter. Fox and MSNBC have thrived on this strategy. This is a business model that works in the current market.
The problem is that this model does not compete directly with broadcast networks and traditional media, it merely breaks off niches and dominates them. It’s the Long Tail at work.
I call this a problem because it is not a strategy that a big market daily paper can pursue. The AJC cannot overtly lean like the NYT or WSJ and survive – the Atlanta market is just not big enough. The AJC needs to be the credible source of reporting in this market, and not risk credibility on the branding that comes with endorsements and opinion. And there have been changes at the AJC towards the goal of putting more focus on local communities, and being the ATL metro news outlet of repute.
You guys want endorsements for local races – read Creative Loafing. They do a good job, and are plugged in. If you want a newspaper that covers the Atlanta metro area like a blanket, on a daily basis, then you need a more reporting-based newspaper like the AJC.
This is not meant to promote the AJC as a credible or “good” newspaper – only to say that they are pursuing a certain business strategy that is likely their best shot.