A newspaper's decision not to endorse either presidential candidate was the right call--sort of
You’d think that the sky was falling, the way newspaper employees (they used to be called journalists) are caterwauling about their publishers decision not to endorse a presidential candidate.
As I’ve said before (Newspaper owners decide who to endorse, not woke reporters or editorial writers), their whining and bitching is wrong, to put the best possible light on it.
Unfortunately, the Los Angles Times, Washington Post, USAToday and other papers that didn’t endorse failed to give the right reason for no endorsement:
Both candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, are unfit to be president.
Here I’m talking about what I would have recommended to the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board of which I was a member. I’m not talking about how I would vote. A newspaper’s endorsement is done as a useful guide to its readers, not a vote by board members on how they plan to vote.
First, saying that neither candidate fits the bill takes guts. Obviously, no endorsement leaves a void; but saying why both candidates stink does not. Instead of upsetting one candidate who might threaten retaliation, it angers two.
Most newspapers are endorsing Harris because of their liberal/progressive/Democrat biases. The critics say publishers that aren’t endorsing are protecting their non-newspaper business interests from retaliation by Trump.
How odd that is. If there’s a go-along-to-get-along player in this game, it’s those papers that endorse Harris as required by their rock-solid loyalty to the Democratic Party and all they represent. Don’t be naive; Democrats are just as worried about offending their big corporate contributors who could just as well retaliate against them.
Truly, both candidates aren’t the best that America can do. By saying that neither is qualified, newspapers would point to a huge problem for our democracy: How these two got nominated to be the leader of the free world.
It’s complicated, as the saying goes.
Among the reasons: It’s a flawed primary system; the people involved; the commitment to ethical and legal procedures like voting; money, power and influence; ideology; party loyalty; self-interest like protecting a patronage job. And more.
Whatever the explanation, these two are what we, the American people, have been handed.
Unfortunately, the real reason that some newspapers will pick a nominee is simply this, “We’re not enamored with candidate A or his/her policies. But we have to endorse candidate A because he/she is less loathsome or scary than candidate B.”
And that’s the way it is. Many Americans will grit their teeth and vote for one or the other. But, the newspapers could be a big help if they could step away from their political biases and confirm what most voters already know. Work should begin immediately, the editorials should say, on how to prevent this in the future.
Anyway, that would be my view if I was still a member of the editorial board.