Why newspapers endorse political parties
Why do newspapers endorse political parties during elections?
Toronto Star public editor Kathy English posits an answer to the question,
“Why do newspapers endorse?” by quoting a Star editor 36 years ago:
“The easy way for a newspaper, as for a citizen, would be not to
support any party in this election. But this is not a responsible
course for a citizen in a democratic society – or for a newspaper that
believes it has a responsibility to provide comment and opinion on the
issues of the day.”
Globe and Mail editorial board editor John Geiger was asked the same question in an online discussion
which included some strong criticism by readers. One Globe critic said
by endorsing any party “you cause your objectivity, rightly or wrongly,
to be suspect in the public mind.” Another wrote, “Why alienate many of
your readers, who remember your silly endorsement when they consider
buying your paper in the future?”
Geiger’s response was that not endorsing a party in an election “would
be like spoiling a ballot. What’s the point? The decision Canadian
voters make on Tuesday is vital. “None of the above” is simply not an
option. Nor is neutrality…. (to) refuse to take a position on the
most important question before the country, is wrong-headed. It does
not serve the interests of readers and it does not serve the interests
of public discourse.”
Both briefly discussed the issue that, in my opinion, is critical to
any newspaper’s credibility in its prime role, of providing
information: the idea — if too rarely the practice — there’s a
firewall between distinct editorial and news departments. Said Geiger:
“The editorial board and the news operation are separate animals.” Said
English: “…the Star’s editorial endorsement represents the Star’s
institutional voice and does not influence the newsroom’s goal of fair
news coverage. News and editorial opinions are separate entities, what
journalists often compare to the separation of church and state.”
Three comments about all this. My first thought is that too few readers
understand the distinction between opinion and news. In some newsrooms, especially small ones,
the distinction is blurred. Even when there’s a firewall the media
often fails to explain to our audience how it works. During my own experience
working on an editorial board, some people thought I was a member of
the corporate board of directors; other readers regularly assailed our
“unethical” lack of “balance” in editorials and opinion columns. Opinion columns that run alongside news stories on the same page often look the same, and even journalists might have to look twice to distinguish them.
Second, there is self-censorship by reporters who may report on “news”
while keeping in mind the opinions of the editor or corporate owners on
their pet topics.
Third — on a more serious note — the ideal of separating news and
opinion is extremely superficial compared to allocation of resources by
a newspaper’s managers, to reporters to cover “news” stories or to
editorial boards and columnists to provide opinion. Too many of our
media organizations, I suggest, hire mostly and in some cases only
opinion columnists who hew to the ideology of their corporate owners.
Many provide no resources to “objectively” cover issues the owners
disdain, or which are muddied with commercial considerations.
October 12, 2008
Is the bias and lack of
Is the bias and lack of objectivity of papers not obvious to people anyway? No-one (seriously) pretends that they’re objective. I would hope that anyone who reads Toronto-area papers knows that the Toronto Star is Liberal, the National Post is Convservative, NOW supports the NDP, and so on. People just need to bear that in mind when consuming their content.
October 12, 2008
Editorial endorsement is
Editorial endorsement is unethical and also removes any objectivity to the news content as you never know when the important facts were obligated or altered by the executive (with excuse of course) to distort the information and force someones point on everyone else. Unfortunately this happens too often.
The media should remain objective. Isn’t objectivity what journalism is all about? If not, then any joe’s opinion would have the same weight as the reported news from a journalist. Any media which endorses a political party or whatever ideas simply kills its objectivity.
I don’t have to go far to demonstrate my point. The Dion’s interview by Steve Murphy showed on Oct 9/2008. Steve used a rather unclear and strange form of the English language (mixing tense unnecessarily) to present his hypothetical question to Dion. In the end the interview concluded like any other interviews. But then the executives at CTV Globe Media and editorial boards decided to air out the bloopers of the interview which, depending on the viewer situation shows Dion in an embarrassed moment or shows Steve Murphy’s poor handling of the English language. The next day after airing these embarrassing bloopers, CTV and the Globe and Mail publicly endorsed the Conservative party (ha! that is probably why!). Basically CTV Globe media executives used their media powers to influence people’s opinion based on their own personal preferences and gains. This clearly shows there is no separation between the news and editorial entities. In the end I am still puzzled by the bloopers because I still can’t see their purpose beyond trying to humiliate an individual. CTV’s bosses excuses for airing the interview bloopers was something to do with important news for the maritimers? (what/how ?)
This is what happen when there is no objectivity. People looking for the facts and truth are served with only part of it leaving the rest to interpretation. As an example, these “fat cats” executives from CTV Globe Media influence what news they want people to believe is the natural truth. So far most media have been successful at convincing the Canadian public that objectivity is not important and keep on endorsing a political party.
October 14, 2008
It’s may be OK for columnists
It’s may be OK for columnists to endorse a party. But an editorial is the official stance of the news organization. Endorsing one party over another amounts to pursuing a political agenda, a pursuit that can consciously or unconsciously affect the objectivity of the newsroom. Some editors allow their biases to affect the kind of stories they assign. In other cases, reporters may slant their stories a certain way to curry favour with their editors. Taking away the endorsement takes away the temptation or inclination to be biased toward or against any particular political party.
October 15, 2008
It is absolutely essential
It is absolutely essential for a newspaper to declare its support for one party or another, and the sooner in the campaign the better. That way, the reader has a context within which to understand what is being written. True objectivity is only possible when bias is declared. Manipulation and deceit are always hidden under the cloak of declared objectivity.
October 16, 2008
Good point Mr. Fleet, but
Good point Mr. Fleet, but based on my experience in the media training industry, you give newspaper readers too much credit.
Maybe in the day newspaper readers were smart enough to keep track, but today, hardly.
The people who read J-Source or follow other industry news publications are an exception. Most average people who read newspapers would be hard pressed to explain the difference between an editorial, a columnist, and investigative journalism.
Smart readers today tend to congregate in a space where we can call a writer on their facts and bias in a comments section.
No one has time to try to read between the lines.
If I can’t comment, I don’t waste time consuming it because there are too many other good places to invest my energy and money.
October 16, 2008
In his argument defending
In his argument defending Globe policy to endorse a political leader, John Geiger talks about the institution (i.e. the newspaper) as if it were an individual citizen, and that “refus(ing) to take a position” would not serve the public discourse. I admire his inclination toward transparency, but why not take it one step further? Why not identify each member of the editorial board, and tell us what party or leader each member is supporting, and why? Otherwise, we have to believe that all opinion-makers and shapers in the upper echelons of the newspaper have the same political view. Which is absurd. And scary. , , , Is there no public discourse inside the editorial boardroom? Do they all speak with one voice?