During the 2000 Bush/Gore election, I was on the editorial board of a small Texas newspaper. I also was the government reporter, covering local, state and national news and every election. Near November the editorial board met to choose political endorsements. We had endorsed in races from the county to U.S. legislators and this year had to decide between George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore for U.S. President. We knew Bush as our Texas governor for a few years. I had covered the state long enough to know that every one of his four campaign goals was already set in motion whether he won or lost to Gov. Ann Richards. Bush even came to town where I was a reporter. The personal visit was a big plus when papers decided on endorsing a candidate, especially if he or she sat down with the editorial board. Bush popped in to talk to the newspaper editor and publisher. That day we workers were told to stay at our desks and not get up until the Governor and Presidential candidate left the building. He walked in at the appointed time and waved at us in the newsroom. I smiled and waved back. I’d interviewed Gov. Bush several times.
Who would the editorial board choose: Bush or Gore? The editorial board consisted of five members. Two were Republican, and three of us were Democrats. So knowing everything there was to know at that time about Bush and Gore, we voted, and Gore would be endorsed by the newspaper.
But the next day, the publisher decided the newspaper should endorse Bush. He had been our governor after all. He was like family. The publisher had called newspapers across the state and found all were endorsing Bush. Perhaps he worried we’d be on 60 Minutes having to explain why we were the only Texas newspaper not endorsing Bush for President. We didn’t have a reason other than the majority of us on the editorial board were Democrats. But the three of us were in the news biz and could think for ourselves. Bush was friendly and all but never seemed to fit the big boots of Governor of Texas. We who were Democrats disagreed with his business, social and environmental policies at the expense of millions of disenfranchised Texas families. We came to that conclusion from working the state to local angles of new policies, from which we developed our opinion and endorsement.
The editor talked to the other two Democrats on the editorial board, which included yours truly. He refused to write an editorial supporting Bush. So did the other Democrat. I had no problem writing up a glowing endorsement of Bush. I’m a writer. I can write any angle whether I believe it or not. Covered many stories about issues I personally do not support. So I used my first-hand knowledge of Bush plus his campaign brochures and got to writing. No one would ever know I was the one who wrote the Bush editorial endorsement.
A quarter century later, our nation—which enshrined freedom of the Press into our Constitution—not only has significantly fewer newspapers but this year even fewer that will endorse for U.S. President, evading altogether to choose either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump.
News you used to use
The news biz is not what it used to be and is visibly unsure of its future existence and present purpose or relevancy. ‘Who’s reading?’ is the question, always been. Now people prefer news sources that promote their political beliefs whether Left or Right. And the news business has evolved into commentary-heavy instead of predominantly news, which it should be. Broadcast news channels are 95 percent commentary and five percent news.
See, the public thinks news people constantly talking about politics is arrogant.
Even during my years in newspapers, starting in the 1980s, I always sensed a doom-and-gloom built into the once proud and illustrious newspaper industry. Still, I persevered. Some of us reporters were natural writers. Writers are always observing everything, asking questions, and then writing about it. Journalists, however, are supposed to report news. We investigated, researched and studied our story ideas so that what we wrote, what was printed and published, was accurate sans bias.
I object to the assumption that journalists can never report on people who’ve experienced ordeals they haven’t. A writer can do it and does it all the time and has throughout history. Have you read classic novels or a play or watched a good movie?
Fear is the reason newspapers like The Washington Post and LA Times shamefully shirked their expected duty to endorse a Presidential candidate. They fear hostility by millions of Americans not to forget the well-known contempt of the media by one of the Presidential candidates. When it came to endorsing Harris and Trump, these papers figured rightly “Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.” But the decision to avoid a Presidential endorsement altogether was chicken. Reporters quit over it.
NEWSpapers should have endorsed one presidential candidate over the other. It’s not arrogance but an informed opinion for the record and posterity that the public should know whether they care or not—and future generations should know about Presidential endorsements, too. The media has access to candidates and vice versa. Citizens do not.
Arrogance is the perception the public has of the media, newspapers and reporters. I disagree but as a reporter interviewed enough folks to understand where they’re coming from—lives with many hardships, few options or paths for improvement, feeling powerless as if their lives don’t matter—then I’d write about it.