At present the newspaper’s Editorial Department is neck-deep in politicians, amateur and pro, as we conduct interviews with candidates running for office. It’s all part of the endorsement process.

Newspaper endorsements are a tradition whose pedigree is matched only by the hostility they evoke. For some reason, many readers who don’t object to the fact that a newspaper expresses its views on issues from gun control to whether there should be a stoplight at the corner of Pickle and Vine streets (though they might disagree with a particular conclusion the paper reaches) become absolutely apoplectic when a newspaper says it thinks one candidate is even marginally better than the other. At a guess, the hostility probably grows out of a small-d democratic impulse—something along the lines of, “Don’t tell me how to vote!” Folks who feel that way are certainly entitled to. But if the police lodge, the teachers’ union, the chamber of commerce, the Bible-thumpers’ brigade, and the tree-huggers’ conclave can make endorsements, why not the local fishwrap?

(There is—or was—the argument that, at least in Richmond, the Times-Dispatch is “the only daily newspaper in town” and therefore has a duty, somehow, to stay neutral. But that argument draws three rebuttals: First, the newspaper is not a public utility. Second, we didn’t use to be the only paper in town—and if there were enough reader interest, we wouldn’t be now. Direct the complaint at the people who refuse to read. And third, what used to be a quasi-monopoly no longer is: The Internet has given everyone his or her own printing press.)

The newpaper makes its choices about whom to support much as others do: By looking at the candidates’ positions on the issues, their voting records, their philosophies, their public statements, their personal qualities, and so on. The editors are fortunate enough to be able to chat with most of the candidates as well. But newspapers are just as constrained as voters are. They don’t get to choose between the ideal candidate and evil personified. They have to pick from among the names on the ballot.

The best statement on the subject comes from an editor at another paper who said an endorsement is just that—a choice among available options—and nothing more: “It does not constitute unconditional love.”

After listening to last night’s “debate” on the radio, I think I will vote for “none of the above.” It was really depressing.

Any choice is better than none. If you choose, you are obliged to say why you think one candidate is better than the other. The more discussion, the more thoughtful voters will be, rather than just automatically voting party lines.
I doubt that I will agree with many of your choices, but I will learn about them with interest.

I, for one, wish the RT-D were considered a public utility! The news could be a great public service afterall and should be dispensed as such (in my opinion).

But still I look forward to viewing the endorsements.

I’d like to point out that, once every decade or so, RT-D will make a bizarre endorsement. Like last year’s endorsement of Jerry Kilgore. Kilgore was straight out of the 1920s, for pete’s sake—he couldn’t have even won in the 1940s.

Post Your Comments: