Paper tiger?

I WAS a graduate student during the 2016 presidential elections where I learned a lot about American media’s coverage of elections. We don’t generally make newspaper endorsements in Pakistan but it is a big deal in the US with long histories, dating back to Abraham Lincoln.
Two newspaper endorsements from that time stand out for the reactions they elicited. One, the Chicago Tribune endorsed libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I happened to be Facebook friends with a leader writer at the paper and witnessed the anger directed at her for the Tribune’s decision, which they explained in a lengthy editorial, as endorsements often do.
The Arizona Republic endorsed Hillary Clinton, backing a Democrat for the first time in its 126-year history. That endorsement drew media attention and elicited the same excitement that PTI supporters felt at ‘capturing’ Qazi Faez Isa on video in London. Both editorials led to anger, feelings of betrayal, and conversations about the worth of endorsements, exactly what we’re seeing today with two newspapers.
The first is the Los Angeles Times, owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, a biotech tycoon, who said the paper would not endorse any candidate because it wanted to remain impartial. This led to staff resignations and hundreds of cancelled subscriptions but also put the spotlight on his daughter, Nika, who tweeted about the family’s “joint decision” not to endorse. “As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children.”
Her father has denied her involvement, saying she spoke in a personal capacity but she doubled down by tweeting a screenshot of a quote from Ta-Nehisi Coates’ interview to The Guardian wherein he says “this is about apartheid” and “I don’t have much hope from a [Kamala] Harris presidency”. She then followed up with a thread addressing the controversy, saying “I trust the editorial board’s judgment. For me, genocide is the line in the sand.”
LA Times has endorsed a Republican candidate since its founding in 1881 but stopped after the Watergate scandal in 1976. It resumed endorsements when it backed Barack Obama in 2008, and subsequently all Democrats. It has continually written editorials saying Donald Trump poses a threat to democracy so it’s understood the paper is pro-Harris; would an endorsement change anything? And that too days before the election?
Shortly thereafter came the news about the Washington Post’s owner Jeff Bezos withdrawing the paper’s planned endorsement of Harris. Staff resignations and thousands of cancelled subscriptions followed. There was no family drama here, just Bezos saying endorsements create a sense of bias at a time many Americans distrust the media.
The American Presidency Project wrote that 56 of the largest 60 newspapers that endorse presidential candidates sided with Clinton in 2016, compared to eight of any size for Trump. So, we know that these endorsements don’t really sway voters. Perhaps they have outlived their purpose. Maybe editors need to step outside their elite silos and see how they serve their audiences.
Most of the conversation has centred on the problem of billionaires owning the media — the New York Times family, John Henry of Boston Globe, Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp, etc. (The Guardian is reader funded and “is unafraid of potential consequences” for endorsing Harris.)
I don’t think the problem is their money but the value they place on making money over the purpose of journalism. I suspect the Soon-Shiong family did not want to support Harris’ genoci­dal policies but sent out conflicting messaging because they, like Bezos, perhaps fear reprisal from Trump should he win.
What I’ve learned from subscription cancellations is that readers value an endorsement for Harris more than the consequences of her support for Israel’s maniacal war on Gaza. Since watching the 2016 elections, each one since has been framed as important to democracy’s survival and certain communities (women and minorities) are painted as spoilers who don’t know what’s at stake. This time it’s Arab Muslims who are “agonised” by the decision, as Vox put it, “to punish Democrats or stop Trump?” Why must they be portrayed as carrying this “burden” of a difficult choice? Palestine is not just a Muslim or Arab issue, as Nika Soon-Shiong has articulated.
A YouGov poll conducted on Oct 29 saw 47 per cent of respondents say newspapers should not endorse candidates and 28pc saying they should, while 25pc said they did not know. I’m not surprised at the latter because people still don’t know the difference between news and opinion. Maybe that’s a problem that media owners and editors need to address.
The writer is an instructor of journalism.
X: @LedeingLady
Published in Dawn, November 3rd, 2024