Bias/Buy Us: Media Endorsements of Candidates

As many journalists constantly struggle to be objective in their reporting, other media sources have adopted a policy of openly endorsing political candidates. The New York Times recently announced its support of Barack Obama as the next president (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp), which comes as little surprise to anyone following the NYTimes' coverage of the election and anyone aware that the paper has endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee since 1960. During primary season, the publication had endorsed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee and John McCain as the Republican nominee; the editorial article endorsing Obama explains that he has since proven himself to be a capable, even-tempered and intelligent candidate and that the paper's previous reservations have been eliminated through his more recent actions and campaign moves.

This endorsement, as well as those of most other major news publications, raises an ethical issue. The NYTimes systematically listed its reasons for supporting Obama over McCain in a coherent editorial, which is certainly preferable to an arbitrary announcement of support. Regardless of how eloquent and logical their argument is, the endorsement shows that journalistic objectivity is a myth. Most papers do not even pretend to be unbiased; editorial boards assume that they will choose a favored candidate and announce their decision to the public. Admitting bias is often positive, because it enables audiences to intelligently analyze reporting while considering conflicts of interest and opinions. Hopefully, readers will realize the potential impacts of such bias and choose to regularly examine multiple news sources with different biases. If a publication has given up on objectivity, it is only fair that they should fully disclose their bias through an endorsement.

Considering the criticism that objectivity is a myth, endorsements might help the public understand the most accurate version of a story by considering multiple news sources. However, two aspects of the NYTimes' endorsement of Obama were perturbing: the lateness of the announcement and the lack of recognition given to third-party candidates. If publications plan to endorse a candidate, they should do so as early as possible so that audiences can consider their bias throughout their campaign coverage. Otherwise, a reader might not realize that he or she was receiving slanted news coverage for months until right before the election. If events change that shift the publication's opinion, the editorial board should announce the change in its endorsement. Since most papers are consistent in which party they favor, they should be able to announce their endorsement much earlier than mid-October. Also, the editorial in the NYTImes focused on juxtaposing Obama and McCain; third-party candidates were not mentioned at all. If the U.S. were truly a democracy, both the media and the public would consider candidates from outside the major two parties as viable options. The NYTImes revealed in its endorsement of Obama two conclusions that most media consumers had realized for months: the paper leans toward the Democrats, and it completely ignores third-party candidates. If the endorsement process is to continue, certain changes need to be made.