Presidential Endorsements, Anticipatory Obedience, “Independence of Judgment” Fallacy. Why Does It Matter?
As Americans head to the polls in the most divisive presidential election for decades, several major news publications have broken with the tradition to announce their endorsement.
Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, and Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of The Los Angeles Times, have blocked their respective editorial boards from releasing already prepared statements for team Harris-Walz.
As a result, editors have resigned their positions while subscribers are fleeing both papers. But all this turmoil led me wonder: when did these sponsorships become commonplace, and what exactly is their purpose? Why does it matter?
What is the history of presidential endorsements?
In the United States, newspaper presidential endorsements date back to 1860. That year, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other then-major but now-defunct newspapers endorsed Abraham Lincoln's presidential bid.
The Los Angeles Time started in 1881 and provided unconditional support for the Republican presidential nominee up until 1972. Early on, political endorsements were more focused on the personality and character of the candidate and were always strongly influenced by the values promoted by the newspaper owners.
Some newspapers do it for every presidential election cycle, others don't, and some alternate endorsements (Republican and Democrat) based on the perceived best interests of the public.
How does it work?
Endorsements are issued by an editorial board, which operates independently of the paper's journalists. Typically, these editorial boards adhere to a formal process for deciding which candidate to endorse in the run up to an election. They conduct in-depth research on the candidates, including their programs, public statements, background, track records and results. Many editorial boards hold interviews with candidates to gain deeper insights into their positions, priorities, and vision for the future.
Next, editorial boards hold internal discussions to assess the pros and cons of each candidate. This collaborative dialogue helps members articulate the rationale why they support a particular candidate. Besides considering the concerns of their readership, they evaluate how well candidates align with the newspaper's core values, editorial position and mission. This is a crucial element in the endorsement decision.
At the close of the discussions, the editorial board reaches a decision on the endorsement, which expresses the opinion of the majority of its members. A published endorsement is usually backed by a rationale for the choice and its context, outlining the candidate's strengths and the issues at stake.
Why does it matter?
Newspaper endorsements in presidential elections serve several important functions, although their direct impact on electoral votes is often limited. In fact, endorsements encourage citizens to vote. They can sway undecided voters by providing them with reliable, context-based facts to better understand what their choices entail. Multi-editorial endorsements enable people to reach an informed decision on the basis of the collective evidence of several newspapers.
There appears to be a certain confusion between independence and having an opinion. They are two different things: independence does not mean neutrality. Being independent implies freedom from control by others. Being neutral means not taking sides.
In his argument, Jeff Bezos said: “Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.” This claim is a fallacy: instead of being independent, Bezos is making a decision based on compliance with the rules of an anticipated future president. His action is based on what he expects the outcome of the election will be, not independence at all.
Moreover, to announce a few days before the election that The Washington Post has stopped the editorial board from publishing already-prepared statements of endorsement for team Harris-Walz looks very much like obedience.
Final thoughts
The decisions made by these two major newspapers show just how disappointing, even vulgar, American politics have become in recent years. Denying editorial boards the right to publish a pre-prepared endorsement reinforces the prevailing climate of excessive polarization and the danger of a declining democracy. This is not independence, but anticipatory submission, which in fact amounts to welcoming autocracy.
