The
issue should, however, be when, not really, should endorse presidential
candidates. However, now that they are yet to truly open up and give their humble
two cents on aspirants, it’s fair to argue under this sub-topic ‘SHOULD’.
First,
newspapers being owners of serious followers, ardent readers it is only fair
for them to help this category make informed choices. They should. Readers normally
establish a strong connection with newspapers. That bond gets stronger and
influential either way with time. It bears trust. And with this, the two would,
as they engage, shape their opinions.
Readers
have always righted or wronged approaches to stories by their favourite newspapers
if they fell they have meet their expectations or feel they haven’t satisfied
their standards. Newspaper makers, writers, use such contributions—although not
always—to repackage their product for the benefit of all— them and their pool
of readers.
This
shaping should not be one way. In equal sense, the makers of newspapers should try
their best to shape their reader’s opinions however challenging and repugnant it
might be. At first it might look offensive or may turn unpopular but with time
and as the tradition gets ingrained it would be accepted and would surely be one
of those things voters would be longing for during the electioneering periods.
Second,
being opinionated doesn’t hurt. Or is it? The last time opinions hurt was when they
weren’t factual. Remember, the old truth: you can hold to your own opinion but
never to your own fact. That aside, if the newspapers gave factual assessment,
concrete analyses of the situation or honest valuation of candidates they would
be fulfilling one of their corporate duties—that of assisting potential voters
make a more informed pick.
Thirdly.
World trends. You may hate America and their cockiness. You cannot hate
so much their newspapers. Respected publications The New York Times, Washington
Post, San Los Angles Times, endorsed President Obama while The Daily News (New
York), New York Post, The Dallas Morning News gave it to Governor Romney. The Economist,
one of the most respected magazines owing to its consistent crunching of the
world economy, shrewdly endorsed Obama. In total 41 newspapers stamped Obama’s
candidature while 35 gave theirs to Romney.
These
endorsements were not just little articles parroting about candidates or
licking their policies but were serious analyses tinged with tangible deliberations
on the candidates’ stance on the economy, health and more importantly their weaknesses.
Our
newspapers can learn a lot from them. They can do it our way, still. But it
would be good if we borrowed a leaf or two from them. Would it really hurt as
much as if they don’t?
The
obvious challenge is the ethnic nature of the local politics. Any endorsement
may be faced with the possibility of being seen as underscoring a tribal candidate,
a factor that may drive away readers from other tribes. But clearer, open and
factual assessment of the candidates should fell this barrier.
Local
newspapers should not run away from this trending thing, endorsements.
