While Bunch, focused partly on the idea of endorsing candidates in each political primary -- who may well be opposed on many issues (e.g. The New York Times backing Obama and McCain)-- he also critiqued the general idea of endorsements, stating, "We endorse the idea that newspapers should be getting out of the endorsement biz, not back into it as the L.A. Times has done."
Among Bunch's views was the idea that newspapers have a better shot at maintaining their objectivity and unbiased image when they avoid endorsements. I respect his view, but strongly disagree.
The clear focus on editorial pages is the promotion of ideas and views and, of course, opinion. Endorsements are among the most valid of those opinions and, for many readers, helpful. In recent years, the anti-press fervor that has gripped much of the country, a large part of it from right-wing factions seeking to label the media as overwhelmingly liberal, has focused on the idea that the press is not only pro-left, but also bias in that regard with its coverage.
A key piece of that argument targets American newspapers' editorial pages, many of which are left-leaning and proud of it. But that bias claim wrongly seeks to link most editorial pages with news coverage, a claim that for some reason goes too often unchallenged.
The truth is, many newspapers were built, long ago, on editorial page viewpoints that, sometimes, have veered into news coverage. But anyone who carefully examines today's major papers and their reporting of most controversial issues finds the editorial pages do not, for the most part, affect coverage.
That is even clearer with regard to endorsements and campaign coverage. Bunch contends in his piece that "supporting a candidate -- even through a vehicle as tepid as most newspaper endorsements -- gives you being the appearance of becoming a partisan, at least in this sense: A partisan will look for an excuse that might condone the very same behavior -- a breach of ethics, say -- he would condemn in someone else."
But endorsing a candidate for office gives no more indication of being partisan than editorializing for a controversial tax plan, educational curriculum or any of the hundreds of other issues newspaper opine on every day. And issues that readers often turn to newspapers most for guidance.
Research has shown that most presidential campaign voters do not rely heavily on newspaper endorsements in deciding how to vote. But in close races, such as what we appear to have in both parties entering Super Tuesday, they can help some voters who are still undecided.
But more importantly, newspaper endorsements can make a major difference in the lower races. Not only congressional and statewide offices, but the even lower level city council, county commission and sheriff's office votes. Most voters have little time to truly review stances among the town committee candidates or school board hopefuls, and even less time to attend local debates or candidates nights that are more often than not untelevised.
Reviewing how your local weekly or daily paper judges these mostly unknown candidates, after usually extensive editorial board interviews, often makes all the difference in the world to a voter, and usually to a candidate.
Taking away endorsements would have a serious effect on the smalltime elections, and I truly believe, at least some bad impact on larger races, even up to president. The change in primary schedules for 2008 that have placed so many state primaries on an earlier schedule have made primary endorsements even more important.
With the party races still close on both sides, having major papers choose candidates when voters can still have a say that means something makes both the endorsements and the votes more important.