Bill Cotterell: A Fond Farewell to Endorsements

An “October surprise” of this year’s presidential campaign was the demise of editorial endorsements by major news organizations. This unpleasant shock was crystalized by a one-two punch by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, which announced 10 days before the election they would not endorse anyone for the White House.

But the trend was already in motion well before those giants shirked their responsibility to readers — not that many readers will mind. All across the country, going back a few years, editors have cited different reasons for neutrality or for presenting side-by-side comparisons on issues, without comment.

Gannett newspapers, the nation’s largest group, ended presidential endorsements but allowed individual papers to take sides in state and local races. Many opted to editorialize on issues, rather than candidates, and printed columns by advocates and opponents.

“Why are we doing this? Because we believe America’s future is decided locally, one race at a time,” a company spokeswoman said.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel and Orlando Sentinel, meanwhile, “will continue our tradition of robust, well-researched editorials” on state matters, not presidential politics.

“This restriction is in line with corporate-level dictates in other media companies, some of which have eliminated endorsements entirely,” the papers, part of Tribune Publishing, wrote. “It’s well within the long-standing tradition of American editorial pages, which leaves the final say on endorsements to newspapers’ ownership.”

In Minneapolis, the Minnesota Star Tribune suggested readers pay attention to its reporting about campaign events and how to vote.

“We will vet the positions and offer policy analysis of the candidates seeking the nation’s two highest offices,” the paper said. “We will take note of, but forgo staid judgment, as to what might qualify as disqualifying campaign behavior.”

The New York Times endorsed Harris. But The Wall Street Journal showed no sign of breaking a streak of non-endorsements that dates back to Herbert Hoover.

The L.A. Times and the Post drew the most attention with their non-endorsements because of their sizes and reputations. But there is also reasonable suspicion that their billionaire owners, Patrick Soon-Shiong in Los Angeles and Amazon boss Jeff Bezos in Washington, made shrewd business decisions.

Both men have extensive interests outside of publishing. Both papers had been ready to endorse Harris. Trump often stated his intention to punish his enemies. So the Harris endorsements vanished.

The dots connect themselves.

Subscription cancellations and some staff resignations ensued swiftly. If Bezos or Soon-Shiong cared, they didn’t show it.

Business is business, even in an industry that has historically taken pride in enduring advertiser boycotts and reader pull-outs, when it meant telling the truth.

Smug slogans about “speaking truth to power” and “comforting the afflicted, afflicting the comfortable” sound nice in the newsroom. But they mean little to Wall Street behemoths that see newspapers as just one more asset to be exploited.

A cruel oddity in all of this is that the angst in journalism circles, the ethical self-recrimination, is over very little. Newspaper endorsements haven’t mattered for a long time.

There’s an annoying belief among too many readers that news reporting is swayed by political endorsements. Or that we want to tell you what to think. (No, we’re just telling you what we think.)

There are also staff considerations. Most newspapers have had layoffs, buyouts and other financial cuts, and the opinion page is often a first target. A serious endorsement requires daily attention to campaigns, staff research and thoughtful conferences among editors — which few papers have time or payroll to do.

Finally, there’s the dismal choice the parties gave us this year — sort of like picking your favorite Menendez brother.

A few journalists remember and admire editors like Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution, Bill Baggs of the Miami News, and Hodding Carter of the Greenville (Miss.) Delta Democrat-Times, who told Southerners what they hated to hear during the civil-rights era. Their spirit lives in legend, but the business bottom line is what matters now.

Real basically, freedom of the press belongs to the guy who owns one.

Bill Cotterell is a retired Capitol reporter for United Press International and the Tallahassee Democrat. He can be reached at wrcott43@aol.com