Diary of a Mad Voter: Dan Rostad
Newspapers Should Stick To News Not Endorsements
By Dan Rostad, 12-17-07
 |
|
 | |
|
With the anticipation of the Iowa caucuses and what some consider the make or break conclusions that come with a win, place or show in this horse race, you would have thought that every voice that matters would have had their say as to who they or their organizations endorse. But on Friday morning, most cable news programs and primary candidates were waiting with great expectation for the highly coveted and highly sought endorsement of Des Moines Register.
No kidding! The endorsement of one single Iowa newspaper is seen as a pivotal voice in the politics of choosing a presidential primary winner.
I am sure that both the John McCain and Hillary Clinton campaigns were thrilled with the weekend announcement from the Register that proclaimed them as its pick for who should represent the Republicans and Democrats as the candidates for president. However, Hillary’s camp might not have been thrilled with the photo the Register used in their endorsement proclamation.
Imagine what the other candidates and their campaigns are thinking now this supposed voice of credibility and reason has made its picks.
“We believe our job as an editorial board is to arrive at the candidate in each party we think would be the best president, whether a person is leading the polls or garnering 1 percent support. It’s not to predict a winner,” wrote the Register
Carol Hunter, editorial page editor went onto say: “the six editorial board members who participated in the endorsement process disregarded the candidates standing in Iowa or national polls.” I am certain the other candidates in the running would say the Des Moines Register has “disregarded” all the work they have done to garner the support of voters. After all, how can an election so full of the demands and hard work needed to campaign for voter support – with all the fundraising, coffee receptions, interviews, speeches, sound bites, strategizing, shaking hands and kissing babies, only be eclipsed by a single newspaper’s endorsement? That is not fair to the candidates and is certainly not fair to the voters.
Voters turn to the newspaper to find out news and information about the candidates. They expect journalists to ask tough questions and get to the bottom of issues and controversies. They want unbiased insight and analysis. But endorsements should be left to special interest groups and associations. Labor unions always support the Democrats and small business associations always support the Republicans. We know this and have come to expect it because these kind of groups and organizations have a vested interest in who will be the ruling political party. How is it that a news organization considers themselves such a relevant voice of the masses and proclaim who a six-person editorial board thinks is best suited to run for our country’s highest office?
Hunter goes onto describe their analysis in a related article , which just seems to confuse the process even more. In response to the endorsements, the other candidate’s camps are declaring the unreasoned evaluation of the Register’s choices. Heck, even other national and regional newspapers are attacking their endorsements.
I thought newspapers were supposed to be the independent, unbiased voices that chronicle the news of the day, not the mouth pieces for a political candidate. Just as these six editors offer what they consider to be their expertise garnered through ”research, analyses and discussion”, I must ask: Who died and made them boss? What could possibly be their reasons for considering themselves credible to even issue forth this proclamation? It’s not their job!
WordNet, an online dictionary by Princeton University, defines a newspaper as being “a daily or weekly publication on folded sheets; that contains news and articles and advertisements”. When was that definition expanded to include the need for a bunch of pointy-headed newsroom editors to have their say in who they think are the only candidates qualified to run for political office?
Political endorsements should only be given by the voters. Newspapers would be better off by declaring their independence and serve the public better by keeping their opinions to themselves!
Editor’s note: Dan Rostad’s weekly blogs are part of NewWest.Net/Politics’ “Diary of a Mad Voter” feature, a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. For more columns check in with www.newwest.net/madvoter. And for more information on each of the bloggers, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
You are under the mistaken assumption that newpapers are not-for-profit groups driven by public interest. No. Newspapers are increasingly owned by big media conglomerates. Such corporations are the definition of 'special interest group'. Further, who do you think pays the bills for newspapers? Big-business advertisers.
Why do you think no one pays attention to John Edwards? He is 3rd nationally, and in a tie for first in Iowa among Dems, yet every fourth and fifth place Rudy McRomney of the Republican clown car gets more press than him.
John Edwards is running on a platform of limiting corporation power and influence and giving it back to average people. What sort of message, implicit or not, has come down about how to treat Edwards in the corporate newsrooms of America? The know where their bread is buttered.
1. Higher taxes so we can pay for college scholarships for the children of illegal aliens now in the country.
2. Getting a second job so we can pay for college for our own kids.
3. Still higher taxes so we can pay for college scholarships for the children of foreigners who weren’t really thinking about sneaking into the USA, but now change their minds because the willingness of those Americans to pay for college for illegal immigrants is just too good of a deal to pass up.
Seriously, isn’t this the kind of thinking that got us into trouble in the first place? The only creative thinking Huckabee seems capable of is raising taxes to pay for his expensive ideas. We Americans are the most generous people in the world, but we can’t afford to hand out college scholarships to the children of the world. I want Huckabee to teach my Sunday School class, because that’s what his training qualifies him for. I want Romney for president because his education and skills are legitimate and he brings 25 years or so of success using out-of-the-box thinking to turn things around. I do not believe that Huckabee’s tax hikes and one-liners will be enough to turn around the mess in Washington. My vote considers the future of my children and grandchildren, and it will go to Romney.
Saying whatever you think will get you elected is outside the box too, no politician has ever done that. And thinking that your own 5 silver spoon, military age kids shouldn't die in the war you cheerlead for (even though the military is shorthanded) is definitely outside the box.
Simple...
The photo of Hillary in the "Register", makes her look as
though she has just eaten a lemon.
Not a flattering photo.. infact, not even a naturally posed photo.
Don't make anything out of my remarks other than that.
Plain and simple!
They could have used an equally "matched" photo of Hillary
in comparison to McCain. That's all I'm saying!
So, if you think I was insinuating something more sinister
or snide, then you were wrong!!!
Do you "understand what I'm getting at"???
Dan Rostad
12/21/07