I am getting a sense that newspapers across the country are doing what the Cincinnati Enquirer has just done.
It made an endorsement in the race for the presidency and then the paper’s vice president for audience/engagement, Peter Bhatia, explained why the paper made the endorsement in the first place.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/09/23/why-were-endorsing-president/90832776/
The Enquirer broke with a century-old tradition and endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton over Republican Donald J. Trump. I’ll let the editorial stand on its own. It’s a pretty compelling statement.
Bhatia’s rationale of “Why do we do it?” glosses over what I believe is a fundamental truth about contemporary society. Although it is true, as he noted, that people get their news and opinion from a huge — and growing — field of sources, they still have this “thing” about newspaper editorial pages.
Readers might not follow a newspaper’s editorial philosophy or march off in lockstep with what it says. Still, I have this view that readers still expect their newspaper to take a stand … if only to give them grounds to criticize it.
I did this kind of work for more than three decades. I found it invigorating to discuss with my colleagues, with readers and with candidates about whether the newspaper should endorse their candidacy.
And sure, I took my share of broadsides from readers who disagreed with whatever position we took on an election.
I will continue to believe that for as long as there are newspapers being tossed on people’s front porches — or their lawns or under their cars — that readers will want to see what that paper thinks about political campaigns and candidates.
The bigger question, though, might be: How much longer will those newspapers be delivered and will those who produce the “digital product” that replaces them be willing to step up and continue to make these statements?