What do newspaper endorsements signify?

[DSeid]

In the Chicago Tribune thread I posted about some more surprising endorsements that Obama has gained. The endorsement balance is heavily tipping to Obama.

The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for daily newspaper endorsements, by 112 to 39, a than 3-1 margin, picking up 70 or more papers in the past three days, including (see separate stories), the Detroit Free Press, Buffalo News, Cleveland’s Plain Dealer, Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, New York’s Daily News, Miami Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, Portland’s The Oregonian, Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune, Kansas City Star, and Chicago Sun-Times.

In a real shocker, two solid Bush papers in 2004, the Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, also came out for Obama today. So did the more traditionally Democratic the News & Obsever in Raleigh and the Orlando Sentinel, both in key battleground states.

Obama’s lopsided margin, including most of the major papers that have decided so far, is in stark contrast to John Kerry barely edging George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004 by 213 to 205.

We have also added up the circulation of the papers endorsing each candidate. Here Obama leads almost 4-1: 13.4 million to 3.7 million.

McCain did pick up a Texas nod from the San Antonio paper, plus a big one from the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio, as well as The San Diego Union-Tribune. All backed Bush in 2000 and 2004. …

… at least 25, that backed George W. Bush in 2004 and now support Obama … McCain has picked up only one Kerry paper so far: The Daily Press of Newport News, Va.

Add to that list the College Station paper in Texas too. Three of the five Texas newspapers that have endorsed have gone to Obama!

Do newspaper endorsements influence the way undecideds drop at this point? Do they reflect the opinions of their towns? Do they effect turn-out either way? Or are they of no consequence?

[DSeid]

Well maybe no one else has an interest in this, but just in case … here is an argument that newspaper endorsements do matter - if only in battleground states.

The race actually would be decided in a dozen or more “toss-up” states, and in these tight contests, a newspaper endorsement – I believed – could be key, no matter how loudly others scoffed.

So, on election eve, I probed the endorsements in 15 battleground states and awarded electoral votes to one candidate or the other solely on that basis. Regarding Colorado, I wrote: “With Dean Singleton taking over as publisher at The Denver Post, both of that city’s papers lined up for Bush. Kerry picked up flip-flops in Boulder and Greeley, but it’s not enough. Bush gets a rocky win.”

For Oregon: “Did anyone notice that this state went from toss-up to leaning left (according to the pundits), right after The Oregonian switched from Bush to Kerry?” And West Virginia: “Some think this state is also still in play, but don’t believe it, since Bush carries the dailies, 5-2.”

When the votes were counted, I had accurately picked the winner in 14 of the states, from Hawaii to New Hampshire – including the one that would count most, Ohio. I had observed that Bush earned the nod from The Columbus Dispatch (reportedly, after some ownership intervention), got a no-decision from The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, and dominated in Cincinnati, Canton, and Youngstown. I had closed my awarding of Ohio with: “A slight nod to Bush, at least until the court cases begin.”

My only blunder: Florida. But I did note that if Bush won there, he would take the whole ball of wax. This is what happened.

So, did newspapers decide the election? A big maybe. But don’t scoff as endorsements pile up – given the trend in 2004 and some of the early indications this year, Obama may do well. That Canton paper, for Bush in 2004, just went for him.

And a tally of how newspapers have gone so far here for those who want to follow the progress.

Me, I tend to think the newspapers somewhat reflect the tide in their state and help those marginally attached feel better about their choice by way of having the newspaper validate it. IOW I think that a newspaper endorsement helps cement support that otherwise may have been a bit slippery, and the lack of the endorsement allows marginal supporters on the other side to keep questioning themselves. Endorsements in battleground states I think do matter and endorsements that go against the accepted wisdom grain within their readership and against their historic norms signify something really big is going on.

[DSeid]

Bumping this for some more data.

Our primary empirical finding is that endorsements are influential in the sense that voters are more likely to support the recommended candidate after publication of the endorsement. The degree of this influence, however, depends upon the credibility of the endorsement. In this way, endorsements for the Democratic candidate from left-leaning newspapers are less influential than are endorsements from neutral or right-leaning newspapers, and likewise for endorsements for the Republican.

So some of those flipping to Obama in particular may matter.

[Ethilrist]

To me, they signify that the newspapers have decided to abandon objectivity.

[Phlosphr]

@DSeid

Bumping this for some more data.So some of those flipping to Obama in particular may matter.

Yes to some who only vote like sheep, it will matter. Good, more for Obama. The Alaska paper was a biggy in my opinion.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Ethilrist

To me, they signify that the newspapers have decided to abandon objectivity.

Since when is the editorial page supposed to be objective?

[DSeid]

In case anyone cares, an update.

The Democratic team now leads by 240 to 114, a better than 2-1 margin and an even wider spread in the circulation of those papers – see full tally below as of today. The circulation of the Obama-backing papers stands at over 21 million, compared with McCain’s 7 million…

… At least 50 papers have now switched to Obama from Bush in 2004, with just four flipping to McCain. In addition, several top papers that went for Bush in 2004 have now chosen not to endorse this year, the latest being the Indianapolis Star in key swing state Indiana.

Again, while Phl may demean those influenced by a conservative paper flipping for Obama, or by newspaper endorsements in general, they do at least correlate with votes in swing states. IN has no newspapers endorsing Bush and has one that had endorsed Bush and now endorses Obama. Several others endorse him as well. In a close swing state this matters.

[DSeid]

And Ohio has newspapers endorsing McCain to a total circulation of about 550K but newspapers endorsing Obama to nearly double that including 4 papers that had endorsed Bush last time and the largest paper, Cleveland’s Plain Dealer, that had not made an endorsement last time around.

And I still get a kick that 3 big Texas papers that had endorsed Bush are flipped for Obama: The Houston Chronicle, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and The Austin American-Statesman. McCain for his part has one smaller Texas paper flipping for him - The Corpus Christi Caller-Times (circulation about 1/10th of The Houston Chronicle by itself).

And yeah, that last post should read that IN has no newspapers endorsing McCain but it is an easy mistake to make!

[Markxxx]

In the old days it mattered but not now.

For starters newspapers USED to be owned individually for the most part. Now it’s rare to find an independent paper. So the endorsment is likely to come from the head office, not the paper. The Chicago Tribune for instance, owns the LA Times.

Newspapers also endorse later than they used to? Why? Because corporations suck up to Obama as they see him the winner.

Currently the FCC prohibits newspapers and TV stations from a common owner in the same market. With some grandfathered exception. So a company like the Tribune with newspapers and TV in the same market is unlikely to endorse McCain as he will lose and it won’t help them to lobby Obama to change the law.

Newspapers and TV stations are acting in the self interests

Also remember the Chicago Tribune is under new ownership. It’s owned by a venture capitalist and the goal is to make money, not to publish a newspaper. It’s like investing in Google, not because you want to own a piece of the company but rather 'cause you want to make money

[DSeid]

Of course it has previously been pointed out to you in another thread that The Chicago Tribune had encouraged and supported Obama before Zell bought the paper.

But let’s look at your central assertion: “the endorsment is likely to come from the head office, not the paper” and see if it has any factual basis. Well not only do editorial boards claim editorial independence, the empirical evidence backs it up.There is no evidence that corporate boards dictate editorial policy - in fact after mergers papers may even become more divergent in their political POVs!

And again the evidence is that newspaper endorsements do influence votes in close elections (especially swing states) especially when it it is newspaper going against its perceived usual bias. The level that the endorsement originates from does not influence those conclusions.

[DSeid]

Add one more. The Tuscon Daily Star endorses Obama. Now mind you they endorsed Kerry and the Phoenix paper is endorsing McCain but still - in a close Arizona tally …