Skip to main content

Editor & Publisher keeps track of all newspaper endorsements.  We know that Kerry leads Bush in number of endorsements and crushes him in terms of circulation.

Today's Salon piece has a good take on it.  It points to GOP's spin that this is something to be expected, as newspapers in general are way too liberal.  This was Cheney's response yesterday in TV interview and this is the same talking points all repubs repeat - the rest is below the fold.

From the Salon article (sorry, I can't muster those nice gray boxes!)

"Look, the Republican candidate will never win the contest for editorial board endorsements. The major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal," RNC chairman Ed Gillespie told CNN last week. That spin comes straight out of the GOP handbook that insists the mainstream press tilts to the left, so of course newspapers love Democrats come Election Day.

But numbers/history tell the different story.  I was actually stunned to learn that!

"Only problem is, it's not accurate. In fact, the complete opposite is true. Since 1940 when industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That's because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. A lot more. In 1984, President Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy reelection win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.

"...candidate Bush enjoyed a huge newspaper advantage, picking up nearly 100 more daily endorsements than Gore.

On November 6 E&P predicted a huge win for Bush pointing that newspapers endorsed Bush 2 to 1 nationally and citing data from their survey of 800 top newspapers executives one week before the election (59% for Bush, 20% for Gore)

 

"As E&P noted in 2000, "One has to wonder: whatever happened to the so-called 'liberal press'?" The better question for the Bush/Cheney team is, why have all those GOP publishers abandoned the president this time around?.

And a good question it is!

Originally posted to IreneNC on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 10:11 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great diary. (none)
    Rove has to spin what he can to lessen the oncoming onslaught.  
  •  Thanks for this! (none)
    Another lie down the drain....
  •  How to make the gray boxes (none)
    <div class="blockquote">"Look, the Republican candidate will never win the contest for editorial board endorsements. The major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal," RNC chairman Ed Gillespie told CNN last week. That spin comes straight out of the GOP handbook that insists the mainstream press tilts to the left, so of course newspapers love Democrats come Election Day.</div>

    appears as

    Look, the Republican candidate will never win the contest for editorial board endorsements. The major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal," RNC chairman Ed Gillespie told CNN last week. That spin comes straight out of the GOP handbook that insists the mainstream press tilts to the left, so of course newspapers love Democrats come Election Day.

    Why Kos didn't just change the blockquote style I'll never know.

  •  Endorsement thoughts (3.83)
    One of the things I've been pondering has to do with newspaper coverage in the follow-up to the election.

    First off, I'm not convinced that endorsements really sway anyone, particularly in a race such as this one with a very polarized electorate.

    BUT ... if there are election fraud disputes in the days after Nov. 2, doesn't it seem more likely that since many, many major newspapers endorsed Kerry, the staff of these papers will be WAY more inclined to dig deep into election shenanigans on the part of the GOP? I was really stoked to see over the weekend that no Florida newspapers endorsed Bush. If irregularities are found there (and I think there will be many challenges), I think these papers will really take a deep look at GOP tactics and this could help us greatly.

  •  great diary, but I can't recommend (none)
    "Always campaign as if you are ten points behind."
  •  Operation 'Fool Me Once': Keep This Story Alive! (none)
    Help get even more Bush-supporting papers from 2000 to endorse Kerry this time around. Go to Operation "Fool Me Once"

    The story inside the story is the papers who endorsed Bush in 2000, but have abandoned him this time--largely because he hasn't done what they expected him to do, what he told them he would do. Help us continue to pount this point home.

    Thanks!

    Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

    by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 11:39:39 AM PDT

  •  The media should be aware (none)
    They always need trivia to blather on about during the 24/7 news day.

    THIS should be sent to all of them.

  •  What really amazes me is... (none)
    The number of conservative newspapers and magazines have either endorsed Kerry or refused to endorse Shrub. It is really amazing - can you feel the BIG MO!!!
  •  Something else you may not know: (4.00)
    the Winston-Salem Journal's editorial staff wanted to endorse Kerry, but the board of directors of the paper's owner, Media General, squelched that, according to one of the editors, whom I shan't name.
  •  Those of us who have sat ... (4.00)
    ...on editorial boards - I've sat on three mainstream newspaper boards, one alternative paper's - are well aware of the demographic described by E&P. Publishers routinely intervene in endorsements, whether for president or lesser offices, if the board doesn't come to the "proper" conclusions in the first place. That, of course, is their right, but this fact has diluted the whole tedious process editors and other board members go through in figuring out which candidates and ballot issues to back.

    I don't think that editorial endorsements of presidential candidates usually have much impact - the Pew Center survey has done research showing that most readers don't let endorsements affect their vote, and among the 14% who say it does make a difference, half say they vote opposite to the editorial's recommendation. Interestingly enough, many readers don't know who their newspaper endorsed or even think it endorsed a different candidate than it did.

    That being said, the turnaround of so many papers that previously were for Bush could have a marginally higher impact favoring the Democrats this year. It's all part of the trend that has this looking more and more like Kerry's election.

    Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 12:14:30 PM PDT

    •  Not So Sure (4.00)
      I've heard everything Meteor Blades says before, but I'm not so sure that endorsements are so inconsequential--particularly in this election.

      First off, there's plenty of research showing that people forget--or else re-edit--the process that brought them to a particular conclusion.  This is a fairly general conclusion, which encompasses far more than the particular process of deciding on who to vote for. So forgetting what a newspaper said does not necessarily equate to the newspaper having no effect.

      Second, newspaper endoresements have multiplier effects that are difficult to trace, and probably fluctuate considerable from time to time, place to place, and occassion to occassion.  These affect elite discourse as well as mass opinion.  Some are conscious, others subconscious.  

      Third, there's the question of THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION.  And this is where I think this is huge.  We all know that there's a ridiculous rightwing bias in the press. Part of it's specifically rightwing, part of it's brain-dead cool kids stuff, it doesn't really matter how you parse it for my purposes here, we know it's out there, and it's had a huge cumulative effect on this election. (Think Swift Boat Vets vs. AWOL Bush.)

      Well, from where I sit, all that bias primarily comes from or is amplified by the commercial, entertainment influences within the press--which are far stronger in the broadcast press than the print media.  The endorsements signify the "reality-based community" within the press striking back.  And because they have done so in such a dramatic fashion, it even becomes a factor in the fantasy-based press.  This is particularly true as we come down to the wire, and there's a voracious apetite for new stories, when most of the stories have been done to death 50 million times already. Hence, the added significance--and the potential for even more.

      Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

      by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 12:47:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hope you are right (4.00)
        I also think that THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION everything counts (even if endorsements normally have little impact).  I truly believed that some time ago media was liberal - I thought it began to change during Clinton's second term.  But, of course, I grew up in Russia and compared to Russian media everything is liberal! May be this is why I was so surprised to learn that Republicans almost always bested Democrats in collecting endorsements...
      •  Absolutely... (4.00)
        Newspaper endorsements aren't normally that big of a deal, but this is no normal election. A huge factor here is that many people that normally vote Republican (or who did last time, anyway) are looking for someone to validate their uneasy feelings about Bush. (Don't forget, for many of these people, abandoning Bush is unpatriotic at best, and terrorism at worst!) Along comes their hometown newspaper... the one that endorsed Bush last time... the one that was supportive of the invasion of Iraq... and it endorses Kerry instead. Here is their permission to jump ship. People are craving this type of permission. I see it all the time.

        "A thing is not necessarily true because a man gives his life for it." - Oscar Wilde

        by demchick on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 02:52:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your points are well-taken ... (3.80)
        ...but not measurable. All we have to go on is what people say when they are surveyed, and, unfortunately, gauging the effect of endorsements in presidential elections has been surveyed quite rarely, the Pew study being rather exceptional.

        Although interesting, I am even more suspicious of alleged "multiplier effects" and other intangibles than I am of the typical multiple-choice poll or even more thorough surveys.  

        Nonetheless, I agree with you that this election is different - in so many ways - and one of those may well be the impact of editorial endorsements, and I said as much. Bush papers backing Kerry will spur at least some fence-straddlers and usually GOP-leaning readers to do a doubletake and take the editorial advice to heart.  

        However, in my opinion, the impact will still be small because most people don't read newspapers for their news, and most readers of newspapers don't read the editorial page, and, if they do, they are most likely to read the cartoon(s), then the letters to the editor, then the Op Ed and then the unsigned editorials. (I've worked at two newspapers who did surveys on this.) Editorial endorsements may get slightly higher readership. I'll even grant that they will have higher readership among undecided voters who read newspapers simply because they ARE undecided and are looking for answers. But given the factors I've mentioned, the overall impact of these endorsements will still be slight.

        Of course, we'll never know for sure. The one thing I am increasingly sure of - almost dead certain, though I'm not wagering my house - is that Kerry will win and I welcome whatever impact newspaper endorsements are having on that outcome.

        Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 03:01:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What does it mean? (4.00)
          I think we need to consider that this big turn-around in Kerry newspaper endorsements may be a REFLECTION of what their readers and advertisers are telling them--not so much an effort to influence the election, based on their own inside arguments and reasoning, as it is an effort to align with the people who provide their salaries.  They are businesses, after all.  

          And also, partly, just an effort to be right, to call it correctly--to be on the winner's side.  

          It's like an informal, indirect poll of the business community and the civic-minded (those who get and read newspapers).

          In this sense, it is VERY GOOD NEWS for Kerry.    

          I agree that people aren't likely to CHANGE their vote on the basis of an editorial, nor to vote solely on that basis.  But the editorials, in addition to possibly reflecting what readers and advertisers are saying to them, also can create (and likely are creating) a climate of legitimacy for Kerry.  

          It wasn't long ago that challenging Bush seemed absurd to many people.  Challenge the hero of 9/11?  Challenge the "war president"?  Ha, ha, ha.

          By a guy who threw his war medals over the White House fence?  A guy with a 110% librul voting record?

          Ha, ha, ha.

          A  party that got run out of town in 2000?  That cowers at the name Karl Rove?  That couldn't even elect a guy to Congress who left three limbs in Vietnam, and caved in to "he is an OBL lover" propaganda?

          Ha, ha, ha.

          And suddenly, somehow (after a lot of  work here and elsewhere), all of that changed, the veil of lies lifted, and there stood...

          ...an honest man--intelligent, calm, articulate, centrist, COMPETENT, a war hero, who once spoke some hard truths to his fellow Americans...

          ...and hundreds of thousands of new Democratic voter registrations, including many young people.

          And they've got the internet to contend with now.  Circulation worries.  Fear of being old hat.  I think "the times they are a-changin"-- again.  And they are trying to keep up.

          •  Screw endorsements. I'm voting based on (4.00)
            how many times I've heard my older, conservative neighbors say "fucking," "idiot" and "George Bush" in the same sentence. My figures have it at 55.6 Kerry. (1% MoE)
          •  I agree... (none)
            I think a lot of people are missing the point about newspaper endorsements.  It's not that the endorsement itself is going to sway people, it's what the endorsement tells you about the electorate.  Look how many former Bush supporters have switched allegiances.  Even if this is only among the more intelligent echelons of former Bush supporters, it still means a big difference.  

            Remember, Bush couldn't even win before with the amount of support he received.  If he's lost support, and the editorial endorsements is just another example that he has, then that means he has basically no chance of winning (which I really feel is the case, I don't see his path to victory anymore at all).  

            In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

            by Asak on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 07:00:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Straw That Broke The Camel's Back (4.00)
          I admit to being prejudiced, since this is the main thing I've worked on over the past several weeks--aside from writing about voter suppression, etc. But I really do think that this is significant this time, for reasons that others responding to my post have mentioned.

          I do think it reflects sentiment among newspapers readers and advertisres.

          I do think it reflects a broad subterranean feeling (being masked by the polls) that Bush is going down.

          I do think that it serves to give permission to people who need permission to abandon Bush.

          And I think it both reflects and projects tendencies that will bring Bush down.  There is a very wierd dynamic to this whole race. We've seen repeated major catastrophes that should have brought Bush down. Certainly no Democratic President could have survived the Valerie Plame affair. (As it is, most Americans given her name would probably place her on one of those "reality" shows.)  I think of this in chemical terms. It's like the media has taken on itself the role of acting like a chemical buffer. No matter how much bad stuff happens to/because of Bush, they will act to neutralize it, and will do so by invoking a whole host of hallowed media tropes.

          But now there's a trope that swings the other way--the trope of the editorial endorsement, which is playing into an opposite dynamic--that of auto-catalysis.  In a sense, it's payback for all the years of being played, and for that reason it carries a degree of frission that's entirely uncharacteristic of the normal newspaper endorsement process.  And I think that this is something that a whole lot of people feel--subconsciously, I'm sure, for the vast, vast majority of them.  But I think it's out there, and I think it's having a disproportionate effect.

          I still say we've got a chance for a landslide. Not in the classical sense of a 60-40 vistory, but in the sense of a decisive EV count, and winning back both houses of Congress.  And I think that endorsements are both a symptom and a cause of that possibility. Of course, they alone can't ensure that outcome. Nothing can. But they can contribute. And they do.

          Operation 'Fool Me Once' -- Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000

          by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 05:19:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They do (none)
            I was surprised that my father, who is active in local politics & a lifelong Democrat, hadn't the slightest clue who Plame was or Joe Wilson either, and didn't seem to up on most of what seem to me to be major Bush scandals.  It's the local issues that he knew the most about - the state of the economy above all.  And he was always strongly against the war.

            It's interesting b/c we both despise Bush and send anti-Bush jokes and stories back and forth, but hadn't had a chance to really hash out what was going on in the campaign.  He hadn't been totally sold on Kerry for a long while, though certainly would have voted for him regardless, given how much he hates Bush.  I think two things helped to seal the deal, so to speak: the Ron Suskind NYT magazine piece, and the NYT Kerry endorsement editorial.

            What struck me above all was the huge, absolutely gigantic gulf between generations as far as our approach to media.  He has a lot of trust and confidence in the New York Times.  But he didn't know the Chicago Tribune has become a big right-wing paper (hasn't it?) because it didn't use to be so.  He doesn't seem to get why I like the Daily Show and doesn't think it's right for people to spout off anonymously on the Internet, and I don't think he would trust a word of political news from a website, especially a blog run by some anonymous coward, so to speak.  He thinks Hannity and O'Reilly are fascists but trusts the nightly news as well as CNN.  

            I guess you could say.. I'm acutely aware of the need to act as my own filter at all times, no matter where I get the information, although I know which information sources are more reputable and which are not.  And I realized my dad has decided which news sources he can trust, and that trust goes far enough that the need to filter the information they provide doesn't occur to him.

            America to Bush: This joke isn't funny anymore.

            by daria g on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 08:40:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  A number of things (none)
        First, you are completely right about newspapers skewing to the right, not the left, in the endorsements, and I would add that they skew moderately conservative in their coverage as well. Its a nice tool if you are in an argument with a conservative who claims, as Cheney has, that the media has a liberal bias: start ticking off specific papers that have a clear (if not heavy) bias, listing one conservative for every liberal, and the liberal list ends pretty quick as you go on naming paper after paper that goes conservative.

        Second, I think the endorsements do mean something this year, the first being that they are an indication of just how tattered the Bush/Rove plan of running on patriotism during war time (intimidating all dissent)really has become.

        The other reason they MAY prove important is because I have a hunch, just a hunch, that a significant number of voters will put their finger to the wind in these final days, deciding to place their vote with whoever they think will win. This operates on the assumption that 1)people don't want another 2000, and 2)people do want to make a statement to Al Queda that whoever our choice of leader is, we are all behind him.

        In that scenario, the overwhelming number of newspaper endorsements may lend to the feeling that Kerry will win, combined with the surge in Dem registration and early voting, and that feeling may translate into a weekend surge of support for Kerry.

        Just a hunch! Don't hold me to it!

  •  compare 2004 to 2000 (none)
    Kerry is winning endorsements because newspaper editors are just a liberal bunch? When did they become liberal? Was it within the last four years? Because if they were just as liberal four years ago, Gillespie's theory won't explain why Kerry is getting so many endorsements that Gore didn't get.
  •  Cheney wrong? Lying? (none)
    I'm shocked! Shocked!
  •  CNN Transcript (none)
    In a post I made about this earlier on an Open Thread, I linked to the CNN Transcript where Gillespie made this remark.  (The interview starts about 1/3 down the page; it was a joint interview with Gillespie and Terry McAuliffe.)

    Gillespie said this on October 17th, speaking to Wolf Blitzer.  Of course, Wolf didn't call him a liar, or point out the truth--that even if the liberal media idea was true, the editorial boards/owners tend to be conservative.  Instead, Wolf turned to a far more important matter.

    GILLESPIE:  Look, Wolf, you know, the Republican candidate will never win the contest for editorial board endorsements. The major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal, their editorial boards. The New York Times the premiere liberal newspaper in America. No surprise they today endorsed the...

    (CROSSTALK)

    ...

    BLITZER: Let's talk about the Mary Cheney flap that happened in the aftermath of the last debate.

    Too bad McAuliffe didn't point this out either.  The transcript has "Crosstalk" after Gillespie's response, so maybe Wolf or McAuliffe was trying to correct him.

  •  I imagine (none)
    that when taken in sum, endorsements reflect the feelings of the populace at large.

    They may not change people's minds, and it sure is fun seeing who your local paper will give the nod to.

    But these editors do not live on islands all by themselves.  In fact, one could argue that they are in better touch with more people than most of us.

    I sense a suprising win for Kerry.  Just help GOTV, and remember that imagination, a distinctly human trait, is an incredibly powerful force.

  •  My blockquote of the day (none)
    "Republicans spin? Whaaa?

    Someone please tell me, why are the R's afraid of Democracy?

    by MichaelPH on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 02:08:36 PM PDT

  •  Hear that rumbling in the background? (none)
    It's the oncoming electoral smackdown facing Team Bush and many of its Senate and House chums.

    Honestly, does anybody buy this whole playing-to-the-refs "liberal media bias" hogwash any more, even the Right?  It's so transparently phony.

    I'm glad our team seems to be bucking the usual right-tilting bias of the editorial endorsements.

    Remember who won in 1964 and again in 1992.  This year, again, the Democrat seems to be getting most of the endorsements.  Now if he can only finish the race as well as the Dems in those years did...!

    •  SCLM (4.00)
      What conservatives understand that we do not is that if you repeat any message often enough it becomes the truth. This is one spot where Republicans excel and we just don't. It isn't necessarily even lying-- not all pof the time, anyway. Sometimes it's in the wording. The first thing we should do once Kerry is in office is start re-framing EVERYTHING. When WE get the bullhorn back we need to use it more effectively.

      "A thing is not necessarily true because a man gives his life for it." - Oscar Wilde

      by demchick on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 02:58:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (none)
        if you repeat any message often enough it becomes the truth

        No, it doesn't.  It may be PERCEIVED as the truth for a length of time (and that's no small thing), but it does not BECOME the truth.

        Truth is truth .. and it always outs.  Should we (heaven forbid!) lose this election, it will be devestating, but in the end we will win ... slowly, the truth will dawn on all those misguided Republicans and Independents (and even Democrats) who voted for Bush:  the same people who, as detailed in a previous thread, have been totally brainwashed by the aggressive Bush misinformation campaign -- the ones who believe there were WMDs and Bush ratified the Kyoto Treaty, etc.

        Don't get me wrong ... I am not planning on or resigned to winning "in the end" ... but the fact remains that there is no possibility on this great green earth that the Bush spin will EVER become the truth.

        •  Hang in there! Keep the faith, baby! GOTV! (none)
          "Should we (heaven forbid!) lose this election..."

          It doesn't matter.  They've been outed, big time.  Those hundreds of thousands of new Dem voter registrations, and the long lines in early voting, say it all.  It's looking like Nixon, 2nd term.  Drummed out of office...

          The difference is that the outing has occurred prior to the election.

          And if they do manage to steal it again--by by shredding Dem voter registrations, or whatever else they pull--it's not going to work.  Too many people are on to them.  

          Their legitimacy is gone.  Iraq is a disaster.  No one believes them any more (except a few nutcase Armageddonists).  People laugh at their "terrorist alerts." They've bankrupted federal and local governments. They are guilty of major thievery.  All this is coming out.  

          So, win or "lose," we win.  

          The Repugs will probably slither back into "moderation" for a while.  But beware:  think of the money they've made on us, one way or another.  The one that gets me is that our campaign donations are going to the very TV news media barons who have tried to screw us over (i.e., $$$ for campaign ads.)  We're forging new conduits of news and commentary (mainly, the internet, and some radio), but we need to do more to cripple the ability of multinational war profiteers to control U.S. news and TV imagery.

          GOTV!:  to overcome Rovian dirty tricks, and finish this NOW; and to get the overwhelming mandate that is out there, trying to vote.

           

      •  Disagree... (none)
        What we understand that conservatives don't is that constantly repeating something does not make it true.  

        The touted Bush-friendly media could not even get him to beat Gore.  When it comes time for the voters to speak they will do so, despite the propaganda networks' yammering.  They are as ineffective as they are obnoxious.  

        In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

        by Asak on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 07:04:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Related Article adds meat... (3.80)
    from an "onlinejournal" by associate editor Michael Arvey titled The Conservative Bias

    http://tinyurl.com/3ks6h

    Here's a key graf that I think really adds some depth to this diary (great one, btw - thanks).

    For example, daily newspaper endorsements for presidential candidates offer one index that conveys a bias.
    From 1940-1996 the endorsements have been predominantly Republican:
    1940, Wilkie (R) won 60 percent of newspaper
              endorsements, Roosevelt (D) 25 percent;
    1944, Dewey (R) 60 percent, Roosevelt (D) 22 percent;
    1948, Dewey (R) 65 percent, Truman (D) 15 percent;
    1952, Eisenhower (R) 67 percent, Stevenson (D) 15 percent; 1956, Eisenhower (R) 62 percent, Stevenson (D) 15 percent;  1960, Nixon (R) 58 percent, Kennedy (D) 16 percent;
    1964, Johnson (D) 42 percent, Goldwater (R) 35 percent;
    1968, Nixon 61 percent, Humphrey (D) 14 percent;
    1972, Nixon (R) 71 percent, McGovern (D) 5 percent;
    1976, Ford (R) 62 percent, Carter (D) 12 percent;
    1980, Reagan (R) 42 percent, Carter (D) 17 percent;
    1984, Reagan (R) 58 percent, Mondale (D) 9 percent;
    1988, Bush (R) 29 percent, Dukakis (D) 8 percent;
    1992, Clinton (D) 18 percent, Bush (R) 15 percent;
    1996, Clinton (D) 4 percent, Dole (R) 27 percent.

    If there's a bias in these newspaper endorsements, clearly it's conservative.

    Lots more general media stuff in the full article.

    •  And everytime the Dem has gotten more endorsements (none)
      he has won in a substantial, if not landslide victory!  (I think LBJ-Goldwater was a landslide?)

      The election will not be close.    

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 07:07:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks (none)
    Excellent diary...I had basically assumed that more papers would have gone for the Dems, but it's great to see the data pointing the other way. Cautiously optimistic in the new swing state..New Jersey
  •  NPR/Fresh Air (none)
    For those of you into the endorsement side of things, Fresh Air had a great interview with people on the editorial boards of the Philly Inquirer (for Kerry) and the Chicago Tribune (for Bush), how they deal with reader reaction, how the endorsements fit in, or don't, with the paper's overall political stance, and so on.

    http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml;jsessionid=DNGBPSBVMKXIZLA5AINSFEY?todayDate=current

Meteor Blades, Leslie in CA, Chris Bowers, Jeff in PA, Greg Dworkin, RichM, Loudocracy, spyral, Tripleg, The Cunctator, richard, Ed in Montana, MichaelPH, buddhistMonkey, Utah for Dean, KeithH, pb, Sean Robertson, rawls, blindvinyl, tedward, SMucci, JoelK in AZ, jimrice, ogre, Valerie, Ben P, Trendar, gogol, AlanF, 54cermak, miasmo, Philosopher, kemk, daninoah, Jeff Pasley, Blue the Wild Dog, Unstable Isotope, ScientistMom in NY, its simple IF you ignore the complexity, RINO, westcornersville, cityjanefm, RunawayRose, Paul Rosenberg, Maryscott OConnor, jjc4jre, bribri, mad cowan, Power, Elizabeth D, ImeldaBlahnik, Del C, sleeper, boy asunder, persimmony, ETinKC, dash, Victor, hyperstation, deolmstead, brandonp, Buckeye in Los Angeles, histopresto, FreeAtLast, OLinda, spoooky, smilodon, VA Dem, beagleandtabby, drewthaler, GoKeever, DEA, polecat, ashke, PitterPatter, frisco, changingamerica, lawnorder, Muboshgu, object16, storme, twistandshout, bumblebums, ray z, editman, RennieMac, bookt, ChicagoDem79, korbend, bookbear, MikeRayinBerkeley, zeitshabba, GreekGirl, CityByTheBay, seer23, TexasDemocrat, budhalite, Daddy Warbucks, silence, Monstertron, Bruce The Moose, Eternal Hope, NannyR, cosmos, portermason, onoekeh, MCinTX, silverbax, ignatz1138, johnsloan, tyler93023, think2004, Hamumu, meta, amistangel, dianem, Cautiously Optimistic, silas216, profmatt, MexTex, chi mai, brooklynben, hidalgo, dlender, lpackard, colinb, lilithvf1998, Kansas Dem in LA, demokath, peacemom, mole333, boadicea, NorthernGoshawk, political, BornAgainLiberal, MaineMerlin, 28whitman, Leslo, marylrgn, JoshuaJSlone

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site