Do newspaper endorsements influence voters? I refer to the candidate picks printed on the biodegradable news products that digital and cable commentators dismiss as "old media" but talk about nothing but.
They do, according to Brown University economist Brian Knight, though some endorsements pack greater clout than others.
Readers are more swayed when a paper perceived to have a liberal bias backs a Republican, and conversely, when one seen as conservative chooses a Democrat.
This makes a lot of sense. Last week, for example, you saw the regulars on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" cackle over The New York Times' very unshocking endorsement of Barack Obama. The liberals at conservative Joe Scarborough's table shared equally in the laugh.
But there was reverential awe at the Chicago Tribune's decision to back Obama. This is the first endorsement of a Democratic presidential candidate in that newspaper's 161-year history.
"In 2008, they are extreme examples of a surprising and unsurprising endorsement," Knight told me.
In a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Knight and former graduate student Chun Fang Chiang derived a simple econometric model to track the relationship between media bias and media's influence on voting. They zeroed in on newspapers endorsements and the 2000 election.
The big-paper backing with the greatest impact came from The Denver Post and Chicago Sun-Times. The Denver Post had only a 35 percent probability of endorsing Democrat Al Gore but backed him nonetheless. The Chicago Sun-Times had a 58 percent probability of supporting Gore but went for Bush, instead.
You may wonder, as I did, how the economists determined "probability" in a newspaper's choice of candidate. The number was reached by crunching together information on newspaper ownership and reader support for a candidate. (The latter is tracked by a daily survey from University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Institute that asks people who they will vote for and which newspapers they read.) An alternative measure based on the newspaper's history of political endorsements produced similar results, according to Knight.
Editor & Publisher keeps a running tally of newspaper endorsements.
The latest shows 222 dailies backing the Obama-Biden ticket versus only 93 for McCain-Palin. Notably, at least 43 papers that endorsed Republican George W. Bush in 2004 have switched over to the Democrat. And several that backed Bush have chosen to not endorse anyone this year, including the reliably Republican Indianapolis Star in the swing state of Indiana.
In 2004, E&P editor Greg Mitchell did an informal survey that suggested newspaper endorsements do change election outcomes. He looked at the 15 toss-up states and their newspaper endorsements. Weighing the picks for both the number and size of the papers in each state, he predicted which candidate would prevail. He was right in 14 of them. Florida was his only miss.
Readers who try to psychoanalyze newspaper editorial boards may develop more complicated ideas of what they're up to. Consider, for example, the Times' recent thumbs-up to Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate Republican from Connecticut.
Is this a high-credibility endorsement because Shays is a Republican? Or is the Times just combing the landscape for acceptable Republicans so as to seem less in the bag for Democrats? After all, Shays' Democratic foe, investment banker Jim Himes, is a very plausible candidate.
For newspapers, there's something gratifying about these studies and surveys and even the arrows shot their way by bloggers and cable partisans. Go ahead and "diss" the print journalists as pterodactyls of the "Mainstream Media" (even though they have more readers than ever through their papers' Websites). People still get hopped up over what they think. Who ever cared about, much less was surprised by, a blogger's endorsement?
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
??
??
??
??
|
 |
Comments
|
2 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Ma'am;...I love a hard copy, of anything, but when my local paper followed GWB into Iraq and Afghanistan with hardly a side ways glance , I forgot about my subscription.. Corporate news does not justify freedom of the press.. Sure, the editorial board can point its long nose to the sky and tell which way the wind blows, but; just as with the recent wars, if you are becoming antiquated, you have to invite yourself to the party if you want to go... They are no longer in a leading position in society, and it is for the very reason that no one can lead while trying to hold the population back, and then; like it or not, they can get dragged into business like Iraq that ultimately injures their credibility -by the population they are trying to restrain.... I am certain many of us will live to regret the freedom of speech offered by the internet because it comes with no protection.. If the government wanted to shut it down, they could... If they wanted to keep it open to bring out the radicals and disappear them, they could... But while we have the right we should talk because we will only be free while we are free to tell the truth to, and about, each other... I am afraid that so long as the press depends upon the good will and cooperation of government they will always tap lightly where they should strike with a hammer... For better or worse; Fox, in its propaganda mode has pushed all the broadcast media off the center, which was always a stupid place to be, since the truth, if it can be defined is not center, right or left... It is what it is... Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Ma'am; Something else... I would like to compliment your article on Mr. Greenspan.... It was clear from his words before congress that he was acting under an ideal, a concept as a model of reality, and because his model of reality had worked for forty years, he could not cut loose of it when it no longer served to predict reality... The world is made by such ideologues... But you quote him as having some recognition of concepts as forms of relationship; and I will requote him here, if may: "I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadening home ownership are worth the risk. Protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support." ... Now I would ask you what you see here because what I see is quite striking... I see the recognition of rights, property rights in this instance, as subject to political will to enforce and recognize.. That is, rights are forms of relationship, with forms being the equal of idea, or concept... As a form, property is also a form of relationship, which clearly must serve enough people to enjoy political support... Now, broadly speaking, such use and understanding of concepts is rare. We all use concepts, but few think of the concepts they use, and fewer still can think critically of their concepts, and judge if they tell the truth about the reality they model... But this critical view of concepts is what separates most politicians from philosophers... It is wrong to ask a politician his philosophy since he uses ideas, and sees ideas without the ability to see through ideas, and to judge their worth... But, Mr. Greenspan does not seem to take his forms, Property Rights or Market Economy for granted... We have this ongoing talk in society today, about taxes, and the redistribution of wealth... People take their property as granted, that once it is theirs, it is theirs for good, or should be... In fact, such forms of relationship as property, property rights, property law, law in general, and even government must serve enough people to have the support of society... Your property must serve both of us...The form must serve the relationship... What we are soon to find out, is that capitalism, which is a fine ideal, and to some, a perfect form, is not serving the needs of enough people, so it will change until if finds support... Property; which was once wide spread because the demand that it support society kept it from concentration is now in very few hands... Much as the ideal of property, home ownership, widely spread in a critical mass, is a good one for property rights in general, what Mr. Greenspan missed is that interest, as another form of relationship, was the essential form to home owners... People siezed of property paid the taxes, and bore the cost of upkeep, but the property they might defend, were it theirs, was actually owned by people who may never have seen the property... Interest was the form of relationship, and the population, for the most part, owns nothing but debt... How can anyone be inspiired to defend a form that is, for them, only an obligation??? I think, if Mr. Greenspan was trying to achieve a political objective: that of greater support for property rights, he is seeing that cause badly injured by people who take their property rights as certain, proven, and absolute... They are not... No matter how perfect is the form, each form depends upon the relationship for its life and strength... Property is one of many empty forms in this society that have used up the life of the people accepting the form, and now stand in danger of collapse.... Thanks; and best, ...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
