Endorsements by newspapers alarmingly unprofessional

Shane Wade
Opinion Editor

At the Commonwealth Times, we don’t endorse presidential candidates.

From time to time, I’ll write political editorials critical of one candidate or another (this year, Mitt Romney bit the bullet), but it’s not indicative of the staff as a whole.

Endorsing candidates isn’t our job; we’re here to inform readers about events and educate the populace in the fairest manner possible. To metaphorically throw in with one candidate over another would be a violation of our reader’s trust and our journalistic integrity.

To that end, I’ve always felt that public media outlets that report on political matters had the sworn duty to be the dry distributors of political spew-machines, wading through talking points to find truth and facts.

So one could imagine my surprise when I read the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s endorsement of George Allen in the state Senate race.

How is it possible for a supposedly non-biased news source to come out as partisan and retain their credibility as arbiters if they succumb to their desire to endorse? Particularly for major newspapers, that endorsement shouts volumes about the political stance of the staff. It’s taboo enough to talk about politics among friends, but for a newspaper staff to support such an public outing is an embarrassing affront to readers.

In 2008, out of the top 100 newspapers (based on daily circulation numbers), 65 endorsed Obama and 25 endorsed John McCain. Only eight newspapers refused to endorse a candidate. Only eight of America’s top 100 newspapers retained the objectivity.

In a nation where verified facts are disagreed upon and debated by static politicians, citizens’ independent news media plays favorites. In a nation where television news outlets are essentially commercial extensions of political parties, newspapers would sacrifice their objectivity?

And for what gain? The joy of I told you so?

How juvenile. How shameful. How unprofessional.

Newspaper journalism is a dying profession. If it is to die, let it die with the dignity of an objective legacy, a uniqueness that distinguishes it from other forms of media.

The practice of newspaper endorsements is a relic of a bygone era in publishing, where political parties and candidates explicitly bought out media outlets in order to distribute their message and platform.

Now, professional newspapers have the might and means to stand alone, unbridled by candidates, unleashed from talking points, unencumbered by masters.

Yet they remain slaves to the dead system of faux-journalism that bought their forefathers. Newspapers, the titans of the journalism industry, though dethroned by cable circuits, remain the bedrock of journalism. That foundation, and the entirety of field of journalism, is undermined when professionals sell out their newspaper, their name and their cohorts in order to curry favor or attractive and appease advertisers.

Corporations aren’t people and newspapers aren’t citizens. We don’t get voice; at most, we relay the voice of the community.

However biased or critical my personal editorials come across, they neither speak for this newspaper, nor its staff. We are absolute and resolute in our refusal to stir the conversational pot by endorsing any politician, local or national. We are a force of the people and for the people, intent on covering and reporting on events concerning and relevant to you, our audience.

That is the mark of professionalism and I proudly stand by it. CT