Endorsements so far this year:
* John McCain, 105.
* Barack Obama, 234.
Four years ago:
* President Bush, 205.
* John Kerry, 213.
In the olden days, some newspapers actually were backed or funded by political parties. Not only did most endorse candidates, but news coverage often was slanted or opinionated.
Now most newspapers try to be fair and objective in news columns. But editorial endorsements make readers suspicious.
One of the latest to understand that is Jim Santori, publisher of The (Mankato, Minn.) Free Press. In announcing a new "no endorsement" policy for his 22,072 circulation daily, he wrote: "Newspapers should not be in the position of king maker.
An endorsement appears to give a seal of approval and taints the perception of readers of our true intent, regardless of how hard we work at fairness."
Most other bosses of small and medium-sized newspapers agree. But those on some of the country's biggest and best papers still don't get it. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times are among those that continue to make their political reporting suspect because of editorial endorsements.
More than 26 years ago, when we started USA TODAY, we decided there would be no editorial endorsements for political offices. My successors wisely have kept that policy.
That doesn't mean they don't thoroughly cover candidates and issues. But they inform and debate, rather than dictate. That's the right role for newspapers.
Other views on newspaper endorsements:
"We stopped endorsing in 1972, but resumed because they reveal our values and give readers the collective judgments of our editorial board. We don't consult the news side. Ever."
--- Jim Newton, editorial page editor, Los Angeles Times
"We decided this year to endorse candidates in local races, but not in statewide or nationwide races. Why? Voters already have access to lots of opinion on those bigger races--- from a variety of sources."
--- David Iseman, Voices editor, Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader
