Newspapers began endorsing candidates at a time when objectivity was not the goal, nor was it the norm. Owned by power- and money-hungry political influencers, these papers sought to push the agenda of the man who paid the bills.
At the Chicago Tribune in 1936, that man was Col. Robert McCormick. As a known Republican, McCormick openly supported the Republican presidential candidate, Alf Landon, who was running against Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And since McCormick supported Landon, so did the paper. In fact, the paper so strongly supported Landon, according to a Time Magazine article, that 10 days before the election, switchboard operators answered the phone "Hello, Chicago Tribune. Only 10 days left to save the American way of life."
Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
Though it may have been appropriate at that time to so strongly push an agenda, those days are gone. Today, newspapers should strive to provide the most accurate, up-to-date and objective news possible. Endorsing a candidate on the editorial page jeopardizes the credibility of an entire news organization.
In fact, endorsing political candidates directly violates at least two points of interest in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
The first point reads: "Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise or damage credibility."
The second: "Avoid conflicts, real or perceived."
Though many who have studied the journalism industry are able to differentiate between the editorial pages and the news pages, most people in the general population are unable to differentiate, or may not know a difference even exists.
Endorsing Political Candidates: Perceived Conflict of Interest
Regardless of whether a paper endorses a liberal or conservative candidate or issue, the perceived conflict of interest is very real to many everyday readers — especially young readers.
And young readers are often the ones who feel most alienated by biased news coverage.
Rick Stengel, the managing editor at Time Magazine explained it this way in his Feb. 20 article, called "Should Newspapers Still Be Taking Sides":
"At a time when newspapers are trying to ensure their survival by attracting younger readers, the idea of endorsements is both counterproductive and an anachronism. It's certainly the prerogative of newspapers and their owners to endorse candidates, but in doing so they are undermining the very basis for their business, which is impartiality. It's a recipe for having less influence, not more."
Virginian-Pilot Chooses Not to Endorse Presidential Political Candidates
Some papers have begun to recognize the validity of claims such as Stengel's. In October 2007, the Virginian-Pilot announced the paper would no longer endorse presidential candidates because "nothing is more controversial than endorsing candidates."
The editorial board made the choice to no longer endorse because of technological advances and reader habits, saying "It's never been easier for Americans to get the scoop on presidential contenders and draw their own conclusions."
The editors at The Virginian-Pilot made the right decision.
They also did what they could to make it clear to readers that there is, in fact, a difference between the editorial pages and the news pages.
"The endorsements that result reflect the consensus of the editorial board and the publisher, but not — of course — the news department. The news department is kept entirely out of the endorsement process."
The fact that the board felt the need to differentiate between the opinion department and the news department is, in itself, a sign that endorsements are outdated. It also goes back to the second code of ethics point because if the conflict wasn't perceived by the public, the Pilot wouldn't have bothered to mention it.
Sources:
Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
"Virginian-Pilot won't endorse for Presidency." The Washington Times, 2007.
Stengel, Rick. "Should Newspapers Still Be Taking Sides?" Time Magazine, Feb. 20, 2008.