Confidence In News Media Is At A Record Low

 

These charts are from Axios.com -- using figures from a recent Gallup Poll. They show that confidence in the news media is at an all-time low -- 16% for newspapers and 11% for television.

Opposition Grows For Lawmakers Voting Against Election

Several senators and more than a hundred House members voted against certifying the Electoral College results after rioters broke into the Capitol Building and desecrated the building -- putting lives in danger.

This is not being taken well in their home districts and states. Opposition to them is growing, and many of their hometown newspapers are now demanding their resignation.

Here is part of how Jeffrey Collins reports this for AP News:

Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory, even after a mob broke into the Capitol, are being denounced by critics in their home districts who demand that they resign or be ousted. 

Protesters, newspaper editorial boards and local-level Democrats have urged the lawmakers to step down or for their colleagues to kick them out. The House and Senate can remove members with a two-thirds vote or censure or reprimand with a majority. . . .

In St. Louis on Saturday, several hundred people protested against Sen. Josh Hawley, the first-term Missouri Republican who led efforts in the Senate to overturn Biden’s election. The protestors painted “RESIGN HAWLEY” in large yellow letters in the middle of the street.

A caravan of about 40 cars circled Sen. Ron Johnson’s office in Madison, Wisconsin, urging him to resign. Johnson initially supported Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, but after the riot, he voted in favor of Biden’s win. Johnson condemned the violence but did not back off voter fraud allegations.

The editorial boards of two of Wisconsin’s biggest newspapers called for Johnson to resign, joining with editorials published across the country that targeted GOP politicians.

The Houston Chronicle, long a critic of Sen. Ted Cruz, said in an editorial that the Republican knew exactly what he was doing and what might happen when he took to the Senate floor to dispute the election results.

“Those terrorists wouldn’t have been at the Capitol if you hadn’t staged this absurd challenge to the 2020 results in the first place,” the newspaper wrote.

In Alabama, the Decatur Daily called for local Rep. Mo Brooks to resign. The York Dispatch in Pennsylvania said congressman Scott Perry is “a disgrace to Pennsylvania and our democracy,” and if he still believes Biden’s election is fraudulent, he should resign because that means his election was bogus too. . . .

The Danville Register & Bee in Virginia said its representative, Bob Good, needs to go because his words struck the matches that led to the destructive mobs.

Nine Troubling Charts About The News Media

I firmly believe that a democracy cannot survive without a free and vibrant press. But is our news industry in trouble. One trend that we already know about is the corporate ownership of the industry, and another is that most of our media is now owned by only six giant corporations. These 9 charts, from the Pew Research Center, show those may not be the only problems.

A Free Press Is The Best Protection For A Democracy

To his everlasting shame, Donald Trump has attacked the press as enemies of the people. He is wrong. A Democracy cannot exist without a free and unfettered press. The people must know what is happening in their government, whether good or bad, because in the final analysis they make the decisions on who will govern and how they will govern.

Yesterday, at the urging of The Boston Globe, over 200 newspapers fought back with editorials on the importance of a free press to this country. Here is what the New York Times wrote:

In 1787, the year the Constitution was adopted, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote to a friend, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

That’s how he felt before he became president, anyway. Twenty years later, after enduring the oversight of the press from inside the White House, he was less sure of its value. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper,” he wrote. “Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson’s discomfort was, and remains, understandable. Reporting the news in an open society is an enterprise laced with conflict. His discomfort also illustrates the need for the right he helped enshrine. As the founders believed from their own experience, a well-informed public is best equipped to root out corruption and, over the long haul, promote liberty and justice.

“Public discussion is a political duty,” the Supreme Court said in 1964. That discussion must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” and “may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

In 2018, some of the most damaging attacks are coming from government officials. Criticizing the news media — for underplaying or overplaying stories, for getting something wrong — is entirely right. News reporters and editors are human, and make mistakes. Correcting them is core to our job. But insisting that truths you don’t like are “fake news” is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists the “enemy of the people” is dangerous, period.

These attacks on the press are particularly threatening to journalists in nations with a less secure rule of law and to smaller publications in the United States, already buffeted by the industry’s economic crisis. And yet the journalists at those papers continue to do the hard work of asking questions and telling the stories that you otherwise wouldn’t hear. Consider The San Luis Obispo Tribune, which wrote about the death of a jail inmate who was restrained for 46 hours. The account forced the county to change how it treats mentally ill prisoners.

Answering a call last week from The Boston Globe, The Times is joining hundreds of newspapers, from large metro-area dailies to small local weeklies, to remind readers of the value of America’s free press. These editorials, some of which we’ve excerpted, together affirm a fundamental American institution.

If you haven’t already, please subscribe to your local papers. Praise them when you think they’ve done a good job and criticize them when you think they could do better. We’re all in this together.

And here is some of what some Texas newspapers had to say.

The Austin American Statesman:

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long decried unfavorable press coverage as erroneous or incomplete, seeking to blunt the impact of reporting that holds those in power accountable.

President Donald Trump, however, has taken that tactic to the extreme, labeling stories he doesn’t like as “fake news” and branding journalists as “the enemy of the people” — both dangerous distortions designed to untether the administration from inconvenient facts.

Journalists play an essential role in informing voters and holding leaders accountable, a function enshrined in the Constitution as part of the checks and balances that keep our democracy healthy. We stand in solidarity today with the editorial boards of hundreds of U.S. newspapers defending the rigorous, truth-driven work by journalists and opposing Trump’s cynical efforts to dismiss that reporting as “fake news.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

In our business, we know how much words matter. We know, too, that Trump’s references to us as the “enemy of the American People” are no less dangerous because they happen to be strategic. That is what Nazis called Jews. It’s how Joseph Stalin’s critics were marked for execution.

Every reporter who has ever covered a Trump rally knows the scratch of a threat that’s conveyed during that ritual moment when he aims the attention of the crowd to reporters, many of whom no longer stand in the press pen in the back for that reason.

And as real as the threat of physical violence is, especially after the murder of our colleagues in Annapolis, Maryland, Trump’s aggressive posture toward the First Amendment worries us even more.

That’s why we’re joining with fellow journalists across the country in calling for an end to the president’s war of words against our free press.

The Dallas Morning News:

Trump is, of course, not the first U.S. president to voice his grievances with the media. Presidents from John Adams to Richard Nixon to Barack Obama often scuffled with the press corps.

But in our modern era, no president has as publicly or fundamentally challenged the legitimacy of America’s leading news organizations as the current occupant of the Oval Office. The crucial difference is that rather than taking issue with one story or even a series of stories, the intention seems to be to undermine the credibility of the press as a whole with a large swath of the citizenry. 

 We see this as dangerous for the simple reason that by diminishing the press, those who hold high office gain a greater ability to govern without the steadying force of public scrutiny. That’s a recipe not for empowering this president, but rather for ensuring that our leaders in Washington fall out of touch with the people and decide that they know better than the people they seek to govern.

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article216751910.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article216751910.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article216751910.html#storylink=cpy

The Dallas Morning News:

77% Says Major TV & Newspapers Report Fake News

I found this survey shocking. It is a recent survey from the Monmouth University Poll -- done between March 2nd and 5th of a random national sample of 803 adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

It shows that 77% of the public says our major media outlets (TV and newspapers) report fake news -- with 31% saying they do it regularly and 46% saying they do it occasionally. Only 21% said they do not report fake news.

This was not just Trump's followers saying this. It included 61% of Democrats, 82% of Independents, and 89% of Republicans. In other words, a majority of all three political persuasions believe this.

That's very troubling, because a democracy depends on a free press giving them the information to make decisions. Can a democracy even survive if the people don't trust the press?

The only partially saving grace in this mess is shown in the chart below. It turns out that most people have a very loose definition of what constitutes fake news. Only a tiny minority of 25% say fake news is when the media reports facts that are not correct (including 33% of Democrats, 26% of Independents, and 15% of Republicans).

But a much larger group of 65% say fake news is not just reporting incorrect facts, but also includes the editorial decisions made on what news to report (even if the facts are correct in that reporting). And that includes 58% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans. That means that these people consider news that they disagree with to be fake news -- even if the reporting is accurate.

It shows just how partisan the divide is in this country right now. People only want to hear the news that they agree with -- and that seems to include those on both the left and the right.

I have to disagree with these people. Fake news is reporting things that are not true. Stories that are factually correct that you happen to disagree with are NOT fake news. Like it or not, media has the right to choose what stories they will report and what stories they will not report, as long as those stories are all factually correct.

I personally don't like Fox News, because they choose to report only stories that make the right look good. They have the right to do that, and while I may think it's basically propaganda, it is not fake news as long as what is reported is true. And the same can be said of the media that leans to the left.

If you don't like the editorial policy of a newspaper or TV channel, then don't read or watch that media outlet. Find some you are more comfortable with. They don't have an obligation to report only the news you like. Their obligation is only to report the truth.

The Major Newspapers In Texas Endorse Hillary Clinton

(Photo of Hillary Clinton is from cnn.com.)

San Antonio Express-News (February 13, 2016) 

“But most important, as first lady, a U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state, Clinton has demonstrated a broader sense of proportion, pragmatism and accomplishment than has Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist. Moreover, all the key issues Sanders says require remedy, from income inequality to Wall Street abuses, are those that Clinton would also target. It is largely a matter of fantasy versus reality. Though, on guns, she has a far better record.”

Houston Chronicle (February 13, 2016) 

“Clinton, 68, was elected twice as senator from New York and served for five years as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Throughout these roles, and even in her unofficial role as first lady, Clinton has proven herself a steely leader and well-informed policy wonk. If elected, we believe she will continue the balanced priorities of an Obama administration that's overseen steady economic growth, a 5 percent unemployment rate and 17 million people with health insurance who didn't have it before. […] Like on so many issues, Clinton espouses a well-studied energy policy while Sanders aims for the unattainable and undesirable.”

Dallas Morning News (February 13, 2016) 

“She’s better because over her lifetime, Clinton has learned to temper her idealism without losing it. She’s learned to advance her agenda even when it means letting others advance too. She’s cultivated allies. […]  As president, she’d push a mostly liberal agenda, as Sanders would. But her passion for change is leavened by a pragmatism — and a recognition of costs — his lacks. […] But in the half century since she traveled Texas for McGovern, Clinton has shown persistence beyond measure. That has given her time to learn the value of compromise. That’s why she’s the best choice for Democrats.”

Corpus Christi Caller-Times (February 21, 2016)

“In the much more policy-oriented and less personality-conflicted Democratic race, the weight of Clinton's résumé alone should crush Sanders. The Vermont senator can talk about universal health care but Clinton stands alone in having tried valiantly — and unsuccessfully — to achieve it and to have learned from defeat. Her ability to wake up, smell the coffee and work within the confines of the much less ambitious Affordable Care Act should be a plus, not a minus.”

Fort Worth Star-Telegram (February 26, 2016)

“At some point, Sanders’ ideas of forcing radical change in the U.S. financial system and economy must give way to recognition of the full load of responsibilities a president must bear, the variety of challenges and duties that Clinton is uniquely qualified to handle. For the sake of the nation, Democrats must give greater weight to Clinton’s experience for their presidential nominee... Fitting for a public servant of her tenure, Clinton has a long list of sound policy proposals, from aiming for a cure for Alzheimer’s to campaign finance reform, climate change, early education, higher education, the economy, gun violence, immigration, racial justice, Social Security, veterans, workforce skills and more. And, yes, should she gain the Democratic nomination and be elected in November, Clinton would be our first female president. There are better reasons to vote for her, but that one’s cool, too.”  

Major Newspapers Endorse Democrats In Texas

I don't know that newspaper endorsements mean as much as they did in the past, but it certainly can't hurt -- and for the first time in years, the largest newspapers in this state (most of them very conservative) are endorsing Democrats. Even these conservative newspapers have problems with some of the extremists nominated by the teabagger Republicans. This is from Progress Texas:

Endorsed Candidates:

Governor: Wendy Davis

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

Endorsed Candidates:

Governor: Wendy Davis

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

Endorsed Candidates:

Congress: Pete Gallego

Governor: Wendy Davis

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

Endorsed Candidates:

Governor: Wendy Davis

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

Endorsed Candidates:

Governor: Wendy Davis

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Endorsed Candidates:

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

  

                                                                           Endorsed Candidate:
                                                                  Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte 
                                                                    Attorney General: Sam Houston 
                                                                        Comptroller: Mike Collier 

Every Major Texas Newspaper Has Endorsed Democrat Sam Houston For Attorney General

The following post is from the Lone Star Project (LSP). I repost it here because it is something that every Texan should read before casting a vote for Texas Attorney General. This is not a race between two honest men with differing ideologies. It is a race between an honest attorney and an admitted criminal. Here is what LSP had to say:

In the race for the next attorney general, every major Texas newspaper has endorsed Sam Houston over his opponent, Ken Paxton.

There’s a good reason – Sam Houston has the experience and the integrity to be our state’s top law enforcement officer, while his opponent, Ken Paxton, has admitted to felony violations of our State laws and could face criminal prosecution following the November 4th election.
 
Paxton has already admitted to felony violations of our Texas security laws involving his participation in a scheme that swindled a Texas couple out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. A criminal complaint against Paxton is pending before a district attorney. In addition, a formal complaint has been filed against Paxton by a respected legal watchdog group laying out evidence to remove his license to practice law in Texas.

If Ken Paxton is elected Texas attorney general he could be forced to resign. At the very least, he will be embroiled in serious legal problems that make it impossible for him to properly enforce our state’s laws.
 

Here’s what major Texas newspapers are saying about Sam Houston

Houston Chronicle

"With executive experience managing his law firm, Houston will bring the attitude of an attorney over that of a politician."

Strategy to "…save taxpayer dollars while getting good results for Texas."
 

San Antonio Express-News

". . . Texans would have a top lawyer who would tackle problems with an independent point of view."

"If Houston is elected, he plans to focus on the day-to-day work that affects Texans’ lives and depoliticize the office."
 

Dallas Morning News

"He has a clear-eyed view of the attorney general’s office and its core function as the state’s chief legal counsel."

"As such, Houston said he would bring the art of mediation to bear more often, saving the state considerable legal costs that could be spent better elsewhere."
 

Corpus Christi Caller-Times

"Houston would focus the office of attorney general more forcefully upon its core functions — enforcing consumer protection laws, collecting child support, issuing open-records opinions — and less on suing the federal government at Texas taxpayer expense."
 

Austin American-Statesman

“…Houston is the real deal.”

“A successful attorney general needs to be beyond reproach and committed to addressing the needs of the citizens of this state. For an attorney general who will fight for and protect all Texans, vote for Sam Houston.”
 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“Houston says many of the right things about the Texas attorney general’s office, which is basically a big civil law firm. He says the position became too political and should return to operating an efficient, even-handed law office.”

“The Star-Telegram Editorial Board recommends Sam Houston for attorney general.”

Here’s what major Texas newspapers are saying about Ken Paxton

Houston Chronicle

“…has a history of lawbreaking and questionable business practices that should disqualify him in the minds of Texans.”

“Paxton improperly solicited clients in 2004, 2005,and 2012. This habit reveals either a striking disregard for the law or chronic forgetfulness, neither of which are desirable qualities in a candidate for attorney general.”

San Antonio Express-News

“…the case raises disturbing ethical questions about Paxton. We believe voters should take this blemish on Paxton’s record seriously as they consider who should be the state's top lawyer.”
 

Dallas Morning News

 “Serious legal issues dogging Republican state Sen. Ken Paxton should rule him out for consideration to be the next attorney general of Texas.”

“Voters should not invite that kind of embarrassment for Texas.” 
 

Corpus Christi Caller-Times

“Republican Ken Paxton should be disqualified from consideration because his compromised ethics are a matter of record.”

“Paxton helped pass the law he violated. The attorney general, by job description, must be above that kind of reproach. “
 

Austin American-Statesman

“…the complaints raise the specter of the state’s top attorney facing a possible grand jury investigation and indictment while attempting to carry out the duties of the office. This is unacceptable.”

“Even without the legal concerns, it would be difficult to endorse Paxton. He appears ready to use the office to fight the battles of national politics at the expense of concerns of the state.”
 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“The Republican nominee, lawyer and state Sen. Ken Paxton of McKinney, is undeserving of consideration.”
 
“No candidate to lead “the people’s law firm” should ever have misled a client, a state board or the people of Texas.”

Down-Ballot Democrats Getting Newspaper Endorsements

I think an endorsement by a major newspaper doesn't have the effect today that it once had, but it certainly doesn't hurt. And some of the biggest newspapers in Texas are showing some love for down-ballot Democratic candidates -- Leticia Van De Putte, Sam Houston, and Mike Collier. It'll be interesting to see if these endorsements help those candidates.

Endorsed Candidates:

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

Endorsed Candidates:

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

Endorsed Candidates:

Lt. Governor: Leticia Van De Putte

Attorney General: Sam Houston

Comptroller: Mike Collier

Public Has Little Confidence In The News Media

The chart above is made from information in a recent Gallup Poll (conducted between June 5th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,027 adults, with a 4 point margin of error).

This should bother the news media. In a democracy they have one of the most important jobs -- keeping the people informed so they can make knowledgeable decisions. But people across the political spectrum think the media is failing in their mission. The conservatives give a slight edge to TV news, while liberals, moderates, and the general population gives a slight edge to newspapers.

But the truth is that most Americans think both the TV news and newspapers are doing a poor job, and only about one out of every five Americans has confidence in the news media. I agree with the 80% or so who have little confidence in the media, because I think that media has to a large extent abandoned investigative journalism in favor of presenting corporate propaganda (which is not surprising since most of the mainstream media is owned by a handful of corporations).

TV news presents an illusion of being fair -- by bringing a Republican and a Democrat on to throw accusations and lies at each other (without doing any fact-checking of what they say). They also ignore the opinions and positions of other parties (such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party) and Independents -- as though the policies of the Democrats and Republicans are the only ones worth considering. While the media should be informing Americans, they are instead acting as gatekeepers (so only corporate-approved ideas are reported).

It is a shame that there is so much disrespect for the media -- but they have brought it on themselves by refusing to carry out the sacred mission they have been entrusted with.

NOTE -- The public doesn't have much confidence in internet news either (19%).

Too Much Media Is Owned By Too Few

This is why Americans don't get every side of most issues -- just the corporate-approved side of the news. Anyone who wants news not biased to the point of view of the giant corporations just can't depend solely on the mainstream media. This makes it very important to protect the freedom of the internet, which many times is the only place to find the non-corporate side of any story.

Are Newspapers Really Dying Off ?

This information is from the latest Pew Research Center survey on the media -- done between July 17th and 21st of 1,480 nationwide adults -- with a margin of error of 3 points.

It has been said that the internet is killing off newspapers. And looking at these survey numbers, a person could certainly make that case. While 54% of those 65 and over still read a newspaper to get much of their news, that percentage has dropped rapidly for younger age groups -- only 29% of those 50 to 64 read newspapers and a smaller yet 18% of those 30 to 49 do so. Those are some horrid numbers.

But note that there is a small ray of hope. Look at the 18 to 29 age group. About 22% of them get much of their news from newspapers -- that's 4% higher than the age group just above them (and slightly more than the margin of error). Is that an outlier number (and a future survey will show it to be wrong)? Are newspapers starting to make a comeback? Or have newspapers just bottomed out, and a readership of just over 20% will be the new reality for a while?

I don't have the answer. It could be any of those three possibilities. I just thought it was interesting that the youngest adults showed a slight increase in readership, instead of a continuing decrease. Maybe there is hope after all for one of the oldest of our news media.

Internet Growing As Source For News

Hundreds of years ago, all people depended on word of mouth for their source of want is happening in the world (news). But then the printing press was invented, and soon people were getting most of their news from newspapers. And as new inventions came around, the source of news for most people changed -- first to the radio, then television, and cable TV.

And it does not stop there. With the invention of the internet, a new and growing source of news was created -- and it looks like the internet may now be the most popular source of news today. At least, that's what a new poll (conducted between April 22nd and 28th of 863 registered voters -- with a 3.4 point margin of error) shows. The poll is by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind.

The poll's respondents were asked what their primary source of news was, and the following numbers were reported:

Internet...............44%
Local TV...............43%
Cable news...............38%
Network TV...............33%
Newspapers...............31%
Talk radio...............21%
Public radio...............18%
Comedy TV...............10%
Other...............5%

The numbers for the leaders are still within the margin of error, so it cannot be definitively be said that the internet is already number one. But if it is not already the number one source of news, it soon will be -- because it is growing very fast. Just a couple of years ago, the internet numbers would not have been nearly this high. And age is a large factor in the growth of the internet as a primary news source -- with younger people relying more on the internet than older people. Here are the numbers by age of those who list the internet as their primary news source:

18 to 29...............83%
30 to 44...............57%
45 to 59...............42%
60 plus...............19%

Media Can't Be Trusted & People Know It

The great Eric Sevareid (CBS commentator) said many years ago, "I have never quite grasped the worry about the power of the press. After all, it speaks with a thousand voices, in constant dissonance." I believe that was once true -- and when it was, our freedom was protected because there was always a way for the truth to get out to the people. Sadly, it is no longer true.

As the graphic above says, 90% of what the American public reads (newspapers, magazines), watches (television), or listens to (radio) is owned and controlled by only six giant corporations today. And none of these six corporations truly have any independent news sections. They all demand the news be reported through the filter of what is best for corporate America -- regardless of whether that is also best for the vast majority of Americans or not.

This has seriously crippled our democracy. And if it weren't for the internet (where freedom still reigns -- at least for now), we might not even have a democracy anymore. People who get all or most of their news through the mainstream media (those six corporations) don't get the full picture of what is happening in the world. They only get what the corporations want them to see of the real news, combined with pop culture and entertainment news (because that is what sells advertising).

The only bright spot in this dismal picture is that the American people (at least most of them) seem to realize the major media outlets are not giving them a full or accurate reporting of the news. A recent Gallup Poll shows that only 21% of the public has confidence in television news -- down from 46% in 1993 (when they first started asking about it). And newspapers don't fare much better. Only 25% of the public expresses confidence in newspaper reporting -- down from 51% in 1979.

This lack of confidence in the mainstream media is reflected throughout the political spectrum and across all demographic groups. Here is the breakdown (with the first number being confidence in television news and the number in parentheses being confidence in newspapers):

General public...............21% (25%)

Republicans...............17% (22%)
Independents...............17% (20%)
Democrats...............34% (37%)

Conservatives...............22% (21%)
Moderates...............20% (27%)
Liberals................19% (30%)

18 to 29...............28% (38%)
30 to 49...............22% (27%)
50 to 64...............16% (20%)
65 & older...............21% (18%)

Men...............16% (23%)
Women...............26% (28%)

High school or less...............29% (27%)
Some college...............20% (25%)
College graduate...............17% (25%)
Postgraduate...............10% (23%)

I wish I could say there will be more diversity and independence in the future (a return to the "thousand voices in constant dissonance"), but that is highly unlikely. The impetus today of the corporate-owned media is not to deliver the news, but to make money for the corporation (and slant the news that is reported for their benefit).

This makes it extremely important for us to jealously guard the freedom of the internet.

Newspaper Endorsements - Worthless?

There was a time in this country when getting the endorsement of a major (or even a small-town) newspaper was a necessary element of a political campaign.   Newspapers were the major way that voters learned about the candidates, and an endorsement by a newspaper could mean thousands of votes that a candidate would not have had otherwise.   In many races it was the difference between winning and losing an election.

But we live in a different world these days.   In this age of television and computers, there is mounting evidence that the political endorsement of one or more newspapers doesn't carry much weight -- maybe no weight at all.   A prime example of this is the 2010 race for Texas governor between incumbent Republican Rick Perry and Democrat Bill White.

Rick Perry is a far right-winger who has aligned himself with the teabaggers.   I think he knew that he would not be able to adequately answer the tough questions about his teabagger views to the satisfaction of newspaper editorial committees (who are known to throw tough questions at all candidates).   So he made a political decision.   He decided to not put himself in any position where he would have to answer any tough questions.

Part of this was to refuse to debate or appear with his opponent.   But another part was to refuse to meet with any newspaper editorial boards or answer any questions posed by them.   He had a ton of money and pinned his hopes on flooding the state with advertisements, while making appearances only before groups he knew were friendly to him.

The result was that Perry did not get a single newspaper endorsement.   Even right-wing friendly and traditionally Republican newspapers such as the Dallas Morning News and my own hometown paper, the Amarillo Globe News, endorsed Perry's opponent Bill White.   What else could they do?   White was the only one who would talk to them.

What did this landslide of endorsement support from state newspapers accomplish for Bill White?   He lost by nearly 13 points -- an even larger deficit than any of the polls had predicted.   It turns out that the newspaper endorsements accomplished nothing for the Democratic candidate (except maybe to give some Democrats false hope before election day).

Now Perry did have a couple of advantages.   He had a lot of money, and every Texan already knew who he was.   It is debatable whether he could have gotten away with ignoring the media had he been less well-known.   Sharron Angle (Nevada) and Christine O'Donnell (Delaware) tried the same tactic and lost.

But it is still obvious that all of the state's newspapers endorsing Bill White did him no good at all.   A case can easily be made that while newspaper endorsements were once a valuable commodity to a campaign, they no longer are.   They are now just an anachronism -- of interest only to us political junkies.