* The Chicago Tribune editorialized today in response to the Sun-Times announcement that it would no longer be endorsing political candidates…
Newspapers have a unique role as public citizen. They did in 1860 and they do today. It would be an abdication to say what we think should be done on an array of issues every day — and then take a vow of silence about who is most likely to advance those goals. Readers get an independent judgment of the choices in each race, even (or perhaps especially) when none of the options is very good. That judgment is guided by certain principles. You can read our statement of those principles at chicagotribune.com/opinion.
Do our endorsements matter? We’re under no illusions about the extent of our influence. Plenty of candidates lose despite our seal of approval.
When it comes to major, high-profile offices, voters may need no help making up their minds. We try to provide guidance. But in less visible races, readers often lack crucial information. That’s why, if you stand in a polling station for very long, you’re bound to see someone taking a copy of the Tribune endorsements into the booth. In local judicial races, our preference has been shown to affect thousands of votes.
Does the policy of making endorsements make it easier for hostile politicians to depict us as partisan flunkies? Not really, because they’d do it anyway. CNN doesn’t make endorsements, but that didn’t stop Newt Gingrich from vilifying correspondent John King for asking him about his ex-wife’s accusations — saying it proved the “elite media” was supporting Barack Obama.
I think I agree with most of that. We’ll see how the Trib does this year, though. Back in 2010, the Tribune endorsed just one Democratic legislative incumbent with a truly serious Republican opponent (former Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who championed pension reform). An editorial board member traveled to Springfield to meet with Senate Republican candidates, but the Senate Democrats bitterly complained that they couldn’t get sitdowns with some of their own candidates in Chicago.
Then again, it’s a free country so they have a right to do whatever they want.
* A Dallas Morning News editorial writer blogged about the Sun-Times announcement…
But the logic behind the pronouncement strikes me as flawed. Endorsements don’t sway many voters is one explanation. The other: When you endorse, you risk corrupting the overall news mission by introducing a bias, or at least the perception of a bias.
I’ve seen newspaper endorsements make a difference and I’ve seen them ignored. That’s part of the process. I can even recognize that the power of editorial endorsements has greatly waned. But that doesn’t render it useless.
For one, assuming that all endorsements are essentially the same is misguided. On local races, where news coverage is very spotty, editorial boards can made a significant difference by vetting candidates. […]
If there is one thing you learn when you write opinion, it’s that people will impute all kinds of motives in your actions. To think that this is limited to matters political is naïve. Everything, at some level, can be construed as a political statement by those inclined to view the world that way.
I can’t disagree with that.
* Robert Feder makes a good point…
The challenge for the editorial board now will be to persuade candidates to continue to fill out detailed questionnaires and submit to lengthy interviews even though they won’t be vying for the newspaper’s coveted endorsement anymore. Without that seal of approval as a prize, some may figure, why bother?
* There is another little angle to the Sun-Times announcement, by the way. Bruce Rauner is one of the investors who bought up the Sun-Times last month. As you probably know, Rauner is gearing up for a Republican gubernatorial bid…
Rauner, 55, is senior principal and chairman of Chicago-based GTCR Golder Rauner LLC, a Chicago-based private equity firm.
He recently garnered attention as a prime mover of the education reform legislation that passed Springfield, smashing teachers’ right to strike and paving the way for longer school days in Chicago.
Rauner contributed $100,000 to the Illinois Republican Party and another $100K to the House Republicans in 2010.
* Other Sun-Times investors…
The buyers include Michael Ferro Jr., chairman of Merrick Ventures LLC, a private equity firm that deals with technology companies. Ferro, who will serve as chairman, is bringing in media executive Timothy Knight to run the company as chief executive and as an investor. […]
They include prominent investment bankers John Canning Jr., chairman of Madison Dearborn Partners LLC, and Michael Sacks, chief executive of Grosvenor Capital Management LP.
Chairman Ferro gave $50,000 to Andy McKenna’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign, as well as $20K to House GOP Leader Tom Cross.
Canning contributed $250,000 to Stand for Children’s Illinois PAC in 2010, and hundreds of thousands more to Republicans and Chicago Democratic powerhouses like Rahm Emanuel and Anne Burke.
On the other side is Michael Sacks, who is one of Personal PAC’s biggest contributors. But Sacks, like the other two, has been a big Daley and Emanuel supporter.
Might the political ties (and ambitions) of its wealthy investors have anything to do with the paper’s new endorsement policy?
Then again, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut…
[New Sun-Times chief executive Timothy Knight] said the company will buy other ventures or launch its own tech startups.
I wouldn’t exactly turn down a big offer.
Just sayin…
* But, whatever the case, the Sun-Times announcement seems to fly in the face of history, as this post by a State Journal-Register editorial writer makes clear…
In the days when newspapers were owned by individuals and families with strong political ideologies, it made perfect sense for their newspapers to advance those beliefs through editorials. In many cases, that’s why newspapers were founded. The Sun-Times was born this way, when Marshall Field wanted a voice against Col. Robert McCormick, who at the time was using his Chicago Tribune to hammer away at Franklin D. Roosevelt, who McCormick despised. On a personal note, the newspaper I worked for before joining The State Journal-Register, The Capital Times of Madison, Wis., was founded in 1917 by William T. Evjue for the specific purpose of opposing the rival Wisconsin State Journal’s editorial drumbeat in favor of entering World War I.
For much of its existence, The State Journal-Register was owned by James Copley, a staunch conservative, and, later, his family. Copley’s newspapers mirrored his political viewpoints because, well, he owned them.
Nowadays, though, newspapers by and large are owned by publicly held corporations. At the SJ-R, it’s GateHouse Media. Gannett, Tribune, Lee Enterprises and other publicly traded companies own hundreds of papers across the country. Which makes me wonder: If these newspapers are owned by shareholders, how and why should they articulate any particular political ideology?
Thoughts?
LIVE session coverage...
- Adam Smith - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:36 pm:
Another big problem is whether or not the Sun-Times will rein in its columnists who opine on the merits of candidates.
Will the newspaper simply allow its opinion writers fill the void with their often much less analytical endorsements that belie their personal bias and can be clouded by personal affiliations and influenced by candidates?
The public often has little appreciation of the difference between a columnist and an editorial board.
- 1776 - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:36 pm:
These should be treated as political donations. If the AFL-CIO or Realtors endorsed and sent out thousands of fliers in support of a candidate, it would be considered an in kind contribution. They “lobby” for issues and are privately owned.
I also hope that the media is forced to pay high rent for their space at the Capitol. They are for-profit entities with prime real estate paid for with taxpayer dollars. Do the Tribune, Sun Times and others pay for the Capitol office space?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:41 pm:
===These should be treated as political donations===
Oh, please. It’s called freedom of the press.
- Shore - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:46 pm:
The sun times website is like the bowels of a state college library. It’s virtually impossible to find any information on that thing like candidate questionnaires and I am the kind of person who would take the time to read those.
It’s a very weak decision, as I said yesterday I think it really really favors incumbents and those with establishment support or who are very personally wealthy because it closes off a way for challengers and long shots to at least get heard and get some affirmation of their campaigns.
If you’re a moderately informed sometimes voter and you have no idea who your congressman’s opponent is or whether your state senator has had a dui or is under investigation, these endorsements were a chance to get that information. No more. Oh well.
- Bill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:49 pm:
If you sell out I’m gonna retire.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:49 pm:
I have felt for as long as I can remember that a newspaper endorsement had no weight, was a waste of the paper it was printed on, and it should have no credibility in deciding a race….
Unless I can put it in a Mail or Walk pieice for MY candidate and tout it as the best thing ever for the voters to know … but I digress
- Newsclown - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:50 pm:
I have not ever been influenced by the SJ-R’s, Sun-Times or Tribune’s official endorsements. Indeed, often I laugh at them both. I’ll read their editorials from time to time, but I like to think I base my candidate choice on factual data. I’m more interested in the analysis the political columnists offer, than what the editorial boards say: they’ve been completely out of touch for a long while now.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:53 pm:
Bill, I wouldn’t make any retirement plans just yet.
- The Captain - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:55 pm:
Important context: the S-T endorsement in the 2000 Presidential race and the subsequent fallout.
The Tribune makes no bones about the fact that it supports Republicans every time, yet the Chicago metropolitan area is very blue. You’d think it would make good business sense for one of the major papers to have an editorial page that reflected the readership and brought out the best of the issues from that point of view. I guess not.
But the S-T has always been seen as the counterbalance to the Tribune. When they endorsed Bush in 2000 people went crazy. Now that the new owners are just as Republican (in a city that isn’t) as their brothers at the Trib it looks like they’ve elected to go for the cop out. We all lose. Well, not the Trib of course.
- amalia - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:56 pm:
very sad, although the real reason should be that the person in charge of the process at any paper does a huge amount of work, phoning, arranging editorial board appearances, digging for info, leading the decision process, writing. too much to handle. hats off to all who take that on. it’s a shame the Sun Times leaves us with only one big choice in Chicago.
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:57 pm:
I view the Sun-Times decision as a de facto “cut” in the paper (like the size reduction and staff layoffs). They have a tiny editorial board (3 members). They don’t want to commit to the effort of doing endorsements (esp. where those endorsements will be on the public record, and reputation alone makes you want to do a decent job). I’ve subscribed to the Sun-Times for decades, through various editorial boards/ownerships/slants and used to care about it, but that’s becoming harder to do.
- Been There - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:13 pm:
I agree with LCD. The ST & Trib both ask for a million answers on a questionnaire and then give an endorsement on three or four lines. They should give more space to showing those answers. The ST’s step paper, the Southtown Star, I believe does that for the local race. So that still gives incentives to the candidates to answer. Also, since they won’t be worried about whether some of their view get them an endorsement maybe they will be more honest and forthright.
And, Rich, since you are part of the media in my view (and think you should have the new court access), have you thought of doing endorsements? You are not a publicly held corp yet so maybe you should be more like a McCormick, Fields or Copley.
- Dirt Digger - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:13 pm:
I find few things more alarming than the possibility that the Trib endorsement affects “thousands of votes” in Cook judicials.
Except maybe if they move AWAY from the endorsed candidate.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:19 pm:
===have you thought of doing endorsements?===
I’ve endorsed three times. Bill Holland for Auditor General (for his second term, definitely not his first term), Brendan Reilly for alderman and Elgie Sims against the hog with the big, um, well, you know, for county board. I like to keep them rare. More value that way.
- reformer - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:20 pm:
== Then again, it’s a free country so they have a right to do whatever they want.==
The Trib is free to be a partisan flunky, but when they deny it, the rest of us are free to compare their endorsement record to their promise of independence.
- Been There - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:25 pm:
===I like to keep them rare. More value that way.===
Maybe that’s what the ST should have decided to do. Get rid of the local, judges, state rep, etc endorsements and still hang on to the major ones. Even though those are probably the ones that they held the least sway with the voters.
- Dirty Red - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
I didn’t realize Rauner was one of the investors. So really this keeps the editorial board from going against the slate.
And we wonder why subscriptions keep tanking and bloggers start profiting….
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
The Sun-Times readership is blue collar, black and/or Democratic. The new owners are Republican. They’d tick off readers if they endorsed Republicans. They don’t want to endorse Democrats. So they punt.
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:46 pm:
We enjoyed how the Bankrupt Tribbies tried to slide themselves into Newt’s media elite — not
It used to be fun to watch the big papers endorse and then slam the non endorsee with all the resources…colunnists, cartoons the whole nine yards. But then editors decided no one was really paying close attention anymore and gave up.
It is the difference between the Royko Era and the ERV flunky they call Kassamoron.
Ah the good old days
- soccermom - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 2:10 pm:
Feder raises an interesting point. I have been thinking about the questionnaires, and whether I would want to go to all the effort to fill them out if there were no endorsement hanging in the balance. It’s a tough call, but I think I would — if the paper makes them available online in their entirety. I think questionnaires can be a good way for a campaign to communicate directly, without a filter, with high-information voters. Admittedly, that’s not a huge chunk of the electorate, but it’s an important group.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 2:32 pm:
Sorry, it still sounds like an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Sun-Times on this issue. If they don’t want to go through the work of expressing their opinions they should end their editorial pages, of which endorsements are part and parcel of.
They endorse legislative proposals, school reform agendas and other topics, do they not, which can show “bias” in coverage?
- L.S. - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 2:35 pm:
The Trib has become laughable.
“Readers get an independent judgment of the choices in each race” - There is nothing even remotely independent about the Trib endorsements. Candidates who agree with everything they say but refuse to join along in their ax grinding or unrealistic policy positions will not be given any kind of fair shake.
“We’re under no illusions about the extent of our influence” - Maybe now that the reality of cirrculation numbers has set in their not,but they’ve acted like the high priests of the republic for a long time and still make unreasonable or unconstitutional demands for thier endorsement.
“That’s why, if you stand in a polling station for very long, you’re bound to see someone taking a copy of the Tribune endorsements into the booth.” - I’ve worked dozens of elections in hundreds of polling places throughout the city and state, never once seen this.
“Does the policy of making endorsements make it easier for hostile politicians to depict us as partisan flunkies? Not really, because they’d do it anyway.” - Does behaving like a partisan flunkie with an obvious pre-determined agenda make it harder for the paper to claim it’s unbiased? Not really, they’ll do it anyway.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 2:37 pm:
==Get rid of the local, judges, state rep, etc endorsements and still hang on to the major ones.==
I’d prefer they went the opposite way–ignore the national races, concentrate on the local stuff.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 2:52 pm:
===ignore the national races, concentrate on the local stuff. ===
I agreed.
- Been There - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 2:56 pm:
===I’d prefer they went the opposite way–ignore the national races, concentrate on the local stuff.===
The problem is they can’t possibly get to know these candidates and their views in depth like you should if you are going to make an endorsement decision. Ask anyone who has been through these at that level. They ask a bunch of detailed questions on their forms, then give you a couple of questions in an interview. You can tell they haven’t even read the answers in front of them. Plus they look bored throughout the whole process.
- mark walker - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 3:06 pm:
Sorry to see this go. It’s part of a widespread retreat of our traditional press.
The role of the free press has been essential to our democracy. How will we replace them, with their professional reporting, editorial review, and (admittedly limited) fact-checking? We can tolerate their endorsements, partisan editorials, selective stories, and often misleading headlines, to get some access to factual reality.
The tidal wave of complete falsehoods and fraudulent documents distributed on the web for political purposes, is beginning to be really destructive, even for the most responsible of citizens. People at their front doors have shown me fake bills purported to be sent by US Senate Committee staff, false financial summaries on faked Illinois State Treasurer stationery, lists of “facts” uncovered by IG’s who don’t exist, and much more, that these good people got from internet searches because they cared about their government. I worry, but have no solution. Our only hope might be appeals to common sense.
- jim nowlan - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 3:16 pm:
Another practical problem for the S-T in making endorsements is the reduced editorial page staff to interview and vet all the candidates. This is very time-consuming business and I’m betting the edit page staff is a pale shadow of its former self. Tough to spend weeks on interviews and writing up endorsements and keep he edit page going.
- Son of a Centrist - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 3:37 pm:
I don’t believe for one second that the Tribune spends a great deal of time making endorsement decisions in down-ballot races. In Judicial races, they endorse the person with the higher bar-poll rating 90% of the time, despite bar polls being largely worthless popularity contests which can be manipulated easily. I know they also make endorsements in collar county races where they know almost nothing about the candidates. You think the Tribune actually covers Will County Board meetings? Or that it knows what happens at the Kane County Clerk’s office? Who are they kidding?!? The Tribune ought to stick to Chicago… and by the way, the paper was awfully thin today– maybe because most people don’t buy it (i.e., they don’t care about the tribune’s endorsement).
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 4:25 pm:
Good idea to stop the endorsements.
The job of the media is to present the information, not t chew it up and lead the reader to a conclusion. Generally the papers will take de incumbents over the challengers anyway.
Good riddance to an antiquated process.
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 4:57 pm:
I think Anonymous128 has hit the nail on the head. I know Ferro. He’s really conservative and more than a bit nuts. I think the edit board guys are ducking for cover and getting out of the endorsement business before the paper goes all Rupert again. Still, I completely agree with the Trib that it’s an abdication of responsibility. Sad day. Chicago is practically already a one newspaper town.