So apparently even the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's biggest newspaper with a circulation of 76,000, endorsed Obama instead of McCain and Palin, saying that Obama "brings more promise to the office of president," citing specifically his "thoughtful analysis in a time of grave economic crises."
This short blurb, however, puts a slightly different spin on the story. The headline is pretty neutral: "Anchorage Newspaper Endorses Obama," but the first paragraph says, "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may have the respect of her home state's largest newspaper, but she doesn't have its endorsement." That sentence, while not saying it explicitly, sends a message more along the lines that even Palin's home state newspaper doesn't support her. And don't get me wrong, that's definitely a slap in the face. But by making the endorsement about Palin instead of about Obama definitely draws in the body of readers ready to eat up any failure of hers.
I'm not sure I like the whole concept of a newspaper endorsing a candidate. I know it's sort of common practice, but it's kind of counter-intuitive to the concept of unbiased reporting. From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the members of a newspaper's editorial board sit, discuss, and vote on who to endorse in an election. The Connecticut Post says thay they make endorsements not with "political bias, but with what the board members perceive would be best for our communities and state. We talk to the candidates, we research their records and we examine their leadership abilities." So I guess the difference between that and a political bias is that it's made based on qualifications, skills, and abilities, not on the candidate's position on the issues. I'm still not sold on it, though. I mean, if you're really in support of one candidate or the other, aren't you going to think they're most qualified? The journalists on the editorial board are still people with personal opinions and biases... how can they separate themselves from that?
I also have to wonder if everyone on a newspaper's staff agrees with the newspaper's endorsement. I hope that they wouldn't all agree, actually, because I wouldn't want to read news from a source where everyone shares the same opinion and no one checks to make sure that bias doesn't taint the stories.
Maybe, though, by knowing a newspaper's endorsement, we can be more educated readers. Maybe it gives us an idea of what bias to expect, so then we can more easily recognize it if it's given to us. Maybe knowing a journalist's predisposition gives you a flashlight to cut through the fog of his/her potential bias. Maybe a newspaper's endorsement tells you more about how to read the news than how to vote.
I'm still not sold, but maybe that's why newspapers endorse a candidate. Or at least, maybe that's what we can get out of it.
NPR Article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96150814
CT Post Re: Endorsments: http://www.connpost.com/stephenwinters/ci_4570440
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey Gretchen,
This is a really interesting concept. I definately agree with you that it seems almost strange for a newspaper to endorse a specific candiate, particularly when the general idea of the press is to be unbiased. Endorsing one candidate or another, to me atleast, definately indicates some sort of bias, even if not intentionally. I mean, readers of the paper are going to automatically look at political articles in a new light knowing the paper's choice for candidate. And I agree that it is very unlikely that any of the board members, editors etc. were able to completely remove themselves from bias. After all, bias isn't always conscious, but it does effect the way we view things.
I liked how you pointed out the fact that the paper announces it's decision to endorse Obama/Biden not McCain/Palin by saying that Palin does NOT have the endorsement of the paper, rather than Obama DOES and leaving her out of the issue, at least explicity. I found this to put an interesting spin on things and I agree that it will effect the audience of the article and how anyone who reads it percieves the endorsement. By putting it this way, it is stated that they are NOT endorsing Palin, rather than just endorsing Obama. To me there's a difference, but I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone else though. What I mean is that they aren't just saying that they agree with Obama and support him, but that they *don't* endorse Palin. Or at least that's the way it comes off to me, and I'm a reader so my perception counts :P
Anyways, cool analysis and topic! :)
Post a Comment