In an article in the October 23rd Times, Patrick D. Healy writes:
“The New York Times editorial board today endorsed Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for re-election, saying he has a chance to be "one of the greatest mayors in New York history" if he builds on his first-term achievements.â€
Why do newspapers pick a side when it comes to political elections? If The New York Times wants to be fair and balanced, the editorial board shouldn’t endorse anybody. What the paper should do is cover both sides with fair and un-biased reporting and let their readers decide without being swayed.
I know that this isn’t a new thing – papers have been choosing sides for years – but I never thought it was a fair practice.
Bloomberg is ahead in the polls, NYC residents seem to be pretty happy with his performance in the past four years, and he has more money than he knows what to do with - he would be the obvious choice for The Times to support.
Of course if they backed the multi-cultural democratic underdog Freddy Ferrer, we might have to suffer through another book-attack by Bernie Goldberg.
Josh Shear oh his blog says:
"If a paper is going to endorse a candidate, it should do so the day before election day, so that the coverage isn't tainted leading up to the election."
Even I think that's too much. Though I agree with Josh that " Media outlets should not endorse candidates."
It’s a lose-lose situation in my eyes. If there wasn’t formal press backing of any candidate perhaps then the playing field could be just a little more even.
Ah, wishful thinking.
Josh (not verified) @ October 28, 2005 - 6:40pm
Lose-lose indeed -- except for the part where very few dailies in this country have any sort of daily competition (and often when they do there's a joint operating agreement), so eventually the paper comes out no worse the wear for everything.
I think it turns out I'm just an idealist who wants -- but really, really doesn't want -- a citizen-run media system. C'est la vie.
»