Who Cares About Endorsements? Not You.
Sitting at dinner in a local restaurant, I saw breaking news come across the TV screen near the bar. It read, "Washington Post says its editorial board is done with presidential endorsements." This was on the heels of LA Times editors resigning over the decision not to endorse a presidential candidate.
It's interesting to me that this is coming to a head now, because it's a conversation I've been having all year with managers at the newspaper I worked for. My last day as the opinion editor for The Louisville Courier Journal was Oct. 25. My decision to leave had nothing to do with endorsements. I actually agree that newspaper endorsements for presidential candidates are a thing of the past.
The fact is they have little impact on the vote, and time could be spent in other ways that do. In 2016, 57 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton while only two endorsed Donald Trump, and we all know how the vote turned out.
Where the LA Times and The Washington Post messed up is that if it were truly a policy or election approach change, it should have been part of their election coverage planning from the get-go. I know my managers were talking about endorsing -- or the decision not to -- in January. Long before Kamala Harris ever entered the race as the presidential nominee. That was the right thing to do and the right time to do it. I understand things move at the speed of news and changes will be made.
However, by waiting until now, The Washington Post and LA Times leave themselves open to speculation as to "why now?" Readers are left wondering if the decision is money-motivated, a war protest or if the paper is somehow leery of either candidate, so they'd rather not weigh in.
If endorsements don't sway voters (and they don't), then what's the point?
Newspaper endorsements for any candidate is simply virtue signaling at the highest level, which is why you see performative cancellations of subscriptions.
I'd be curious to understand if celebrity endorsements are any different -- I'm looking at you, Taylor Swift.
Media readers (especially younger ones) don't really value an institutional voice telling them what to do or who to vote for. The institutional voice of God in the form of endorsements and editorial board finger-wagging from the city newspaper (if you even have one in your town) is archaic.
These pious pontifications are merely stakes in the ground rooted in misguided ego, thinking newspapers still have some hold over public opinion. This isn't 1800, and they aren't Alexander Hamilton as portrayed in the Broadway musical.
Columnists who put their names to thoughtful analysis do much more to educate and inform the public. The emphasis here is on "thoughtful" -- not hate-filled political screeds that get rage-clicks on social media. Thoughtful journalists do so much more for the vote than institutional opinions from an editorial board.
The people I see most upset by the endorsement decisions are those who grew up with traditional newspapers landing on their doorsteps. So, the GenX crowd and Boomers.
Pew research shows that younger generations get their information elsewhere. If anything, this is another example of newspapers needing to evolve with the times in a meaningful way. Endorsements from newspapers are a thing of the past.
Check out Bonnie's weekly YouTube videos at https://www.youtube.com/bonniejeanfeldkamp. To find out more about Bonnie Jean Feldkamp and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
----
Copyright 2024 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Comments