Madanthonywayne said:
But I was pleasantly surprised to see any member of the "mainstream media" endorse a republican candidate.
In 1992,
The Oregonian (who endorses Kerry this time 'round) gave their nod to Bill Clinton. It was the first time, I think, in the paper's history it had endorsed a Democrat for president. Maybe the second, by something like decades.
Even that story is not as significant as it seems. It certainly doesn't represent the majority opinion in Crawford, Texas.
True, but then why are folks over at FOX News emailing notes about how they don't like their newspaper giving endorsements?
Certain people in a community are expected to think, see, and operate to a certain degree outside the mainstream. Teachers, clergy, and press alike are expected to recognize the limitations of the community; their jobs involve communication. Sometimes it is their job to assert objectivity in the face of popular sentiment.
There
is the argument concerning newspaper endorsements in general, but if, as one FOX viewer put it, some people can't think for themselves, what's the difference? Without an allegedly well-considered nod toward one position or the other--e.g. a newspaper endorsement--their vote won't be any more or less educated. The thing is that the press has let down its end of the bargain, and that's an understandable lamentation, especially for a FOX viewer. If the danger of newspaper endorsements--again deferring to a FOX News viewer--is that those without a clue will simply vote for a candidate because they recognize, say, John Kerry's name from a newspaper endorsement, well,
in theory this is a step better than saying "eenie meenie miney mo", or "whose name sounds less Jewish" or some such. Of course, this is why the press needs to pick up the ball and get rolling again.
And yes, I hold a newspaper editor willing to write an endorsement as better-informed and better-considered in said endorsement than a local guy upset because his newspaper bet against the hometown boy. After all, knowledge and wisdom relevant to politics are actually part of the newspaper editor's job description. This is not true of just anybody in any given town, and not necessarily fulfilled by said editor.
However, as the
Iconoclast endorses John Kerry, it
is an interesting consideration as to why. Or perhaps I didn't realize that Crawford is more scathingly liberal than Austin.
In the larger picture, I think you'll find endorsements much more balanced than most conservatives would expect when complaining about the media. Start counting up the local endorsements in local newspapers, and they will even out in a large-enough sample. I mean, think of it: Portland, Oregon ... and yet it was scandalous in 1992 when the paper endorsed a Democrat for president. Of course, those same conservatives who found it scandalous that their bastion of conservative endorsement had rolled to Bill would be used to it in a couple of years when the paper wasn't critical enough of Portland's mayor to suit their needs; after all, it's a liberal media conspiracy, or something.
The only thing that annoys me about endorsements is when they don't make sense. I might find the
Tribune editors to have a rather strange perspective and thus a skewed sense of priorities, but nothing struck me as completely outrageous. I mean, certainly I find the idea of provoking people into giving us a reason to "defend" ourselves rather ridiculous, but they're the editors of the
Chicago Tribune, not me. And they are apparently fans of this policy. And there
is a legitimate political theory behind such behavior, but we Americans prefer those kinds of governments to be run by puppet clients, and not our own institutions.
However, I do recall that down in Oregon, the Salem
Statesman-Uri ... I mean,
Statesman-Journal endorsed a certain candidate for governor as the sitting officer was not seeking re-election. The editors wrote that the candidate they endorsed was a very regular-sort of guy, very unlike the former governor, who was too intelligent for the office. It had to be one of the funniest things I've ever read, but in the end it only proved the alternative title that was popular ten years ago. Or maybe longer. Anyway ....
I won't argue with your enthusiasm; I would, however, ask you to take a look around at various endorsements as you might stumble across them, and take a look at non-presidential endorsements. In any other year, at least, I've not really been able to pin down a "liberal media bias" in the broader view, and I remember being flabbergasted when I was younger that our local papers would endorse a Poppy Bush or Slade Gorton; at the time, though, it
was the 1980s, and the conventional wisdom said to bet on the most ferocious dog that promised you the most money. There might be a reason more newspapers aren't endorsing Bush; it might have to do with the man himself.
Your own example, discussing the response to the
Iconoclast endorsement of Kerry, pretty much shows the difference. The editors of the
Iconoclast, like editors all over the country, are judging the candidates on what they think actually matters to people's quality of life. The folks accusing a Taliban conspiracy? They're judging the candidates based on some primitivist jingoism: the hometown boy can do no wrong.
