US newspapers fall in behind Obama

With the presidential election less than a fortnight away, more American newspapers are taking sides. Yesterday the New York Times officially endorsed Barack Obama. "He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility," the paper declared.

That Obama would win the backing of the Times was not unexpected - it supported Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry in the previous two presidential elections. But when the Chicago Tribune backed Obama last weekend, it was the first time in the paper’s 160-year existence that it had endorsed a Democratic candidate for President. The historic editorial declared: "We have tremendous confidence in his [Obama's] intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready."

The LA Times also made history when it chose to back the Illinois senator having not endorsed any presidential candidate for decades. "Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature," it said. "He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."

The editors of Editor and Publisher journal, Greg Mitchell and Dexter Hill, point out that very few major papers are actually willing to endorse John McCain, even traditionally Republican titles. The Denver Post, which plumped for Bush in 2004, is one of at least 27 publications to have swapped allegiances and fall in behind Obama.

However, McCain has picked up one big endorsements, getting the nod from the Detroit News - though Obama has the Detroit Free Press on his side – and the Dallas Morning News. The latter declared that McCain "offers the continuity, stability and sense of authority people want, as well as a decisive break from the Bush years".

But there is no doubt Obama is the more popular candidate with newspaper editors: Editor and Publisher has the Illinois senator leading the race for print backing by 127 titles to 49 for McCain.

But do these endorsements matter? After all, two of the country's biggest papers, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, refuse ever to back any candidate. Tim Porter on the US Journalism Review has concluded – along with many of the editors he spoke to - that newspaper endorsements don't change anything. So "what is the point?" he asks. Mary Nesbitt, director of the Readership Institute at Northwestern University, gave him an answer. Editors hope that, with the right endorsement, they can "burnish their image," she suggests.

FIRST POSTED OCTOBER 24, 2008