* 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?