Read on Twitter
Thread -- editorial endorsements from news outlets assessing candidates for public office are Good, as far as I'm concerned. I know not everyone agrees, and that's fine. I think they're part of longstanding journalism traditions that provide useful information to the public.
/1
/1
/2
One could argue that endorsements were more useful in the salad days of news, when communities had multiple outlets. This was true around here (Western Wa) and other places. You had conservative papers and liberal papers. They endorsed accordingly.
One could argue that endorsements were more useful in the salad days of news, when communities had multiple outlets. This was true around here (Western Wa) and other places. You had conservative papers and liberal papers. They endorsed accordingly.
/3
The great contraction of news outlets blurs those old distinctions. These days, ed boards tread a finer line. In theory, it's supposed to reflect a vaguely impartial, nonpartisan ethos -- but it's not that simple.
The great contraction of news outlets blurs those old distinctions. These days, ed boards tread a finer line. In theory, it's supposed to reflect a vaguely impartial, nonpartisan ethos -- but it's not that simple.
/4
This will sound obvious to some, but ed boards have agendas. They're not just liberal or conservative. They might favor notions of good government, or bipartisanship, or experience (which is why incumbents enjoy an advantage with ed boards in many cases).
This will sound obvious to some, but ed boards have agendas. They're not just liberal or conservative. They might favor notions of good government, or bipartisanship, or experience (which is why incumbents enjoy an advantage with ed boards in many cases).
/5
It's a common misconception that ed boards are supposed to reflect their communities, or particular subgroups within a community. That's not what ed boards do. They don't see themselves as mere mirrors of the latest outrage. Generally, they prefer longer views.
It's a common misconception that ed boards are supposed to reflect their communities, or particular subgroups within a community. That's not what ed boards do. They don't see themselves as mere mirrors of the latest outrage. Generally, they prefer longer views.
/6
On that level, ed boards sometimes fail the test of consistency. You might see a robust ed board lay out a broad policy agenda on various issues. Then the endorsements come, and the relationship between the policy agenda and the specific candidate.
On that level, ed boards sometimes fail the test of consistency. You might see a robust ed board lay out a broad policy agenda on various issues. Then the endorsements come, and the relationship between the policy agenda and the specific candidate.
/7
The right answer at such moments, seldom used by ed boards, is acknowledgement: "We know candidate X doesn't support our policy agenda, but we're still picking her/him/they because of other factors." You almost never see this (I haven't.)
The right answer at such moments, seldom used by ed boards, is acknowledgement: "We know candidate X doesn't support our policy agenda, but we're still picking her/him/they because of other factors." You almost never see this (I haven't.)
/8
Those factors often include squishier stuff like temperament or experience, or the obvious fact that one candidate is a lunatic, or simply unfit, which happens a lot.
Those factors often include squishier stuff like temperament or experience, or the obvious fact that one candidate is a lunatic, or simply unfit, which happens a lot.
/9
One quick example of this, from my early days as a journalist in my family's weekly papers. The paper did local endorsements in local races. My dad handled a set of them. One candidate was normal. The other grabbed my dad's lapels and shouted, I NEED YOUR ENDORSEMENT!
One quick example of this, from my early days as a journalist in my family's weekly papers. The paper did local endorsements in local races. My dad handled a set of them. One candidate was normal. The other grabbed my dad's lapels and shouted, I NEED YOUR ENDORSEMENT!
/10
Needless to say, the lapel-grabber did not get the endorsement, though some of his positions on local issues were maybe sort of OK. When you're telling voters to choose between a (relatively) normal candidate you disagree with vs a lunatic, you do what you have to do.
-30-
Needless to say, the lapel-grabber did not get the endorsement, though some of his positions on local issues were maybe sort of OK. When you're telling voters to choose between a (relatively) normal candidate you disagree with vs a lunatic, you do what you have to do.
-30-
