Newspaper endorsements

So today I voted in Illinois’ primary election. I pretty much voted how the Chicago Tribune told me to. Their endorsement page leads to an editorial they wrote in 2012, about why they endorse candidates. Specifically, the Chicago Sun-Times stopped endorsing candidates, arguing that in today’s information age, everyone is capable of making an informed decision on their own. You can read the Tribune’s response on your own, but basically feel that, especially in less-prominent races, newspapers provide valuable information in their endorsements.

My position is that I don’t know much about all the people running for various judge seats, and mostly I want to keep incompetent people out, and i have no trouble letting the newspaper tell me who I should pick there so I don’t have to take the time to do my own research.

I’m especially reminded of the case of Cynthia Brim who voters returned for another 6 years even after being ejected from her own courtroom and was suspended. That’s the type of thing I think newspaper endorsements are good at preventing (actually, voters voted for her despite a newspaper recommendation not to).

But what do other people think? Am I being lazy? Are endorsements really just a big corporation telling me how to vote? Should I be finding out information on each candidate?

I agree with almost everything you said.

I have no trouble choosing candidates for major offices, but there are usually dozens of minor offices and judgeships on the ballot, and since I’m not a lawyer, I usually don’t know which candidates are comptent and which are moonbats.

That’s where I cometimes need guidance, and where mainstream nespapers sometimes come in handy.