PressEthic

I don't think it's all that shocking for newspapers to endorse one political side over another. Some papers don't do it, but many consider it an important responsbility.

The Washington Post editorial editor just explained why they endorse candidates:

Here's why: We spend all of our time in between elections telling officials what to do, advocating for the ideal, arguing for what we think is right. But then, on Election Day, the ideal isn't on the ballot. Instead, there's a concrete choice between two or more flawed human beings. Generally, none of them agrees with us on every issue, but that's true for most voters, too; yet we urge voters to do their civic duty and make their best choices. I think we ought to go on record and do the same -- and be prepared to live with the consequences.

He also explains their process later on in the article, which was helpful. I wish the NYT would do the same.

I don't think it's ethical for the Times to endorse a particular candidate. They might allow editorials on the elections, but the point of newspaper journalism is to report the news in an objective and unbiased manner--which the Times claims to do. Endorsements of any political leaning violate that very principle, and give the government and conservatives more fuel to their fire that the New York Times has a "liberal bias." I'd like to know the decision making process behind these endorsements.

Here's a counterargument:

At many newspapers across the country, including the one where I work, the editorial board -- which functions separate from the news pages, let's remember -- is far more attuned to myriad local political issues than all but a very few voters.

This is particularly true about races for less known positions like County Supervisor, State Treasurer, State Supreme Court Justice, etc.

As a voter, it might be helpful for you to know that the Los Angeles Times endorses one candidate for Lieutenant Governor, and that the Orange County Register backs another candidate, because lots of readers are far more attuned to the broad political prejudices of their respective editorial pages -- and how those prejudices square with the voter's own opinions -- than they are attuned to the differences between the candidates themselves.

Endorsements are particularly helpful when they offer soundly reasoned arguments for electing one candidate, because readers are able to determine the reason for the newspaper's stance and agree or disagree that those factors are the most salient. A slate of candidates is less useful, though I imagine slates have a lesser impact on thoughtful voters.

In my admittedly limited experience covering political races for a newspaper, I never felt pressure to skew coverage to favor the candidate my paper's editorial board ultimately chose. Nor did they choose the same candidates I would've.

Finally, if endorsements are indeed unethical simply because they are biased content, it seems you ought to go a step further and argue that the whole editorial page out to be abolished. I can imagine a fair argument for that position, though I myself like opinion content (particularly as a columnist myself!) and anyway I doubt many people would change their opinions about the New York Times news coverage if its editorial page disappeared tomorrow.

I feel that papers have an obligation to endorse candidates; it's part of the editorial board's job, and also speaks to the pulse of that community, which the paper should be connected to.

In the 2004 Presidential Election, The Times-Picyane in New Orleans was one of several papers that showed its editorial cowardice. The paper refused to endorse either Bush or Kerry, staying out of the fray in one of the most contentious elections in the history of America.

Four years early, they openly threw their support behind Bush, but now they did not know who to back. I guess a case of amnesia had set in that time or they lost interest. They failed their readers at that moment.