Occasionally letter-writers ask questions that require a direct response. But for every one who sends in a question, there are likely several more wondering the same thing. This venue seems an appropriate place to expand the discussion.

Today the paper received this query from a reader ticked off about Sunday’s endorsement of George Allen:

Why is it necessary for a news oganization to take a position, and moreso, why do you deem it necessary to publish it? With what purpose, to influence readers, advertisers? Did you take a vote of all your employees and associates and determine the majority favor George Allen, or is this endorsement self-serving to the executives at the Times-Dispatch?

As the personal reply to the author explained, the Allen endorsement—like our other editorials—is produced by the staff of the Editorial Department, with guidance from the publisher, who has ultimate authority over everything in the paper. That’s how The Washington Post produced its endorsement of Jim Webb, and how all other papers make their endorsements, too.

Not only newspapers, but also many other organizations—from the Virginia Education Association to the Fraternal Order of Police to the Chamber of Commerce—make endorsements. Strictly speaking, it isn’t “necessary” for them to do so, either, but we think they should have the freedom to do so if they please. Surely the paper should, too.

The endorsements are written, of course, to influence readers. We hope people find them persuasive—or, if not persuasive, at least thought-provoking. For some, Times-Dispatch editorials act as nothing more than a whetstone against which they will sharpen their own arguments. Happy to oblige: They also serve who only stand and whet. (There’s a difference, of course, between engaging the editorial’s points and reflexively disagreeing with anything the paper says, without taking the intermediate step of rational thought.)

The Editorial Department does not (thank goodness!) have to concern itself with advertising. We have been told that, occasionally, advertisers will object to an editorial (just as other advertisers would object if the editorial had taken precisely the opposition position). But smart businessmen care far less about what the newspaper says on a given subject than they do about how many people read the paper—about, that is, how many eyes will view their promotional material. It’s in a company’s economic interest to disregard what editorials say. A car dealership that yanks its own ad because it doesn’t like an editorial doesn’t achieve anything but sending customers to the competition. (If you’re still not convinced, compare advertisements in papers around the country. No matter the editorial stance, you’ll find the same advertisers again and again. Why? Because they’re buying space to communicate with readers, not to support or oppose an editorial stance.)

As the earlier post on the subject noted, an endorsement is simply a choice among available options—not a declaration of unconditional love.

For those who aren’t yet bored with this issue, the Virginian-Pilot just published an explanation of its own endorsement process. You can read it here.

As I hear the radio ads from George Allen and watch coverage of his attendance at a rally regarding the state constitution “marriage amendment,” I can’t help but think, “how sad.” Does United States Sentator George Allen have no accomplishments to discuss following six years in Washington?  Instead, he is spending his time talking about a state law matter on which he has no more influence than any Virginian with a vote.

Even better than the off button: don’t pipe the tripe into your house in the first place.  Much to the chagrin of my two daughters, when we moved a few months ago, we did not get cable TV in the new house.  Just cable for high-speed internet.  Now we need to monitor their computer use, rather than TV hours.

Yeah, I agree that advertisers aren’t concerned about endorsements and other types of editorializing by newspapers.

In the same vein, I don’t think sponsors of TV shows are concerned about the content of those shows. That is, of course, until some self-appointed defender of public morals like the Parents Television Council (PTC) steps in and starts using strong-arm tactics like threats of boycotts to force them to drop their sponsorship of shows they (PTC members) find objectionable. I don’t like much of the filth and sacrilegious tripe that passes for television entertainment these days either, but I think the off button is a sufficient enough censor. Sorry for getting off topic.

I, for one, looked forward to your endorsement. I always do. I didn’t agree with it...the rationale given happened to be my reasons NOT to support Allen.(E.g. Useless, feel-good legislation and whoa! look at me I’ve done something big! Meanwhile, nobody’s neighborhood has actually become safer. Ask the people in Woodland Heights.)

I’m ok. I’m alright.

And so I look forward to your next endorsement as well. Its good stuff to read. Endorse away.

What a strange attitude, that newspapers should not take a stand in their editorial columns. On the contrary, I would be happy if they took stronger stands on some issues.

Post Your Comments: