It’s sad to see how daily newspapers are becoming more and more irrelevant.
First it was the LA Times and then the Washington Post. And now it’s the Gannett chain. All have made the cowardly decision not to endorse a candidate for president of the United States.
The Gannett decision hits home, given the fact the chain owns nine New Jersey newspapers, including the Bergen Record and the Asbury Park Press.
Here’s a statement from a Gannett official:
“Why are we doing this? Because we believe America’s future is decided locally – one race at a time. And with more than 200 publications across the nation, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”
Yes, the future is “decided locally.” That’s why Gannett newspapers in such battleground states as Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona should recommend which candidate would best serve their region – and the country.
And a newspaper, quite obviously, can offer “facts” and “trusted information” and still endorse for president.
The nation is split 50-50 and rather than stepping into the debate, Gannett, like the LA Times and the Washington Post, is stepping aside.
One often hears the argument that newspaper editorials conflict with the goal of trying to report the news as fairly as possible.
People who read newspapers – non-readers don’t count in this analysis – are not stupid. They know and understand the distinction between news stories and the editorial page – which in most cases is clearly marked as “opinion.”
They know that because newspapers have been following this format for decades.
I spent about 15 years writing editorials for the Gannett-owned Morristown Daily Record and the Bergen Record, which Gannett bought during my tenure there. I wrote many endorsement editorials, including some for president.
Some people, naturally, disagreed with our decision. They made their feelings known through letters to the editor, a few nasty phone calls and sometimes (but probably not that often) by cancelling their subscription.
All this is part of the public debate that newspapers should embrace or even encourage. I realized long ago that if readers are really upset about an editorial, it can be a good thing because it shows they read it and care about an issue.
Having worked many years at Gannett, I submit there is something else going on.
With newspaper readership slipping, the corporate mindset is to do nothing to upset people. In other words, don’t make waves, everyone and everything is peachy.
That is why many Gannett newspapers in New Jersey no longer run regular editorials. Why offend anyone? My old job as editorial page editor of the Daily Record no longer exists.
So in that vein, the decision by corporate Gannett not to endorse for president is at least consistent.
But it’s also pathetic.
(Visited 17 times, 17 visits today)
Gannett, one of the largest media companies in the United States, has made the decision not to endorse a candidate in the upcoming presidential race. This news comes as a surprise to many, as endorsements from major media outlets can often have a significant impact on public opinion.
The decision was announced by Gannett’s editorial board in a statement released to Insider NJ. In the statement, the board explained that they had carefully considered the candidates and their platforms, but ultimately decided that neither candidate met their standards for endorsement.
This decision is a departure from Gannett’s past practices, as the company has a history of endorsing candidates in presidential races. In 2016, Gannett endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, citing her experience and qualifications for the job.
The decision not to endorse a candidate in the 2020 presidential race reflects the current political climate in the United States. With a highly polarized electorate and contentious issues dominating the national conversation, many media outlets are finding it difficult to make endorsements that will not alienate a large portion of their audience.
Gannett’s decision also highlights the importance of journalistic integrity and independence. By choosing not to endorse a candidate, Gannett is signaling that they are committed to providing unbiased and objective news coverage to their readers.
While some may see Gannett’s decision as a missed opportunity to influence the outcome of the election, others may view it as a refreshing change from the partisan politics that often dominate media coverage. Ultimately, Gannett’s decision not to endorse a candidate in the presidential race is a reminder of the importance of independent journalism in today’s political landscape.
