Newspaper endorsements have historically favored GOP candidates

Interesting piece from the great Nate Silver today.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/#more-18087

So, is the "newspaper bias" in favor of Dems a figment of the imagination or is it real since, while the preponderance of papers may lean right, the biggest papers (NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times) lean left?

Originally posted by sh76
Interesting piece from the great Nate Silver today.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/#more-18087

So, is the "newspaper bias" in favor of Dems a figment of the imagination or is it real since, while the preponderance of papers may lean right, the biggest papers (NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times) lean left?

Editorial pages tend to be written by editors who are more conservative than the reporters under them who tend to be more liberal.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Nixon had more endorsements than McGovern, or that Ford had more than Carter. It certainly is no surprise that Reagan (2x) and Bush 41 (in 88) were more heavily endorsed than their ridiculous opponents. That doesn't mean that the papers liked doing it.

I can understand the Dole over Clinton endorsements in a way, even though Dole was never electable on a national stage. It was simply his turn to run. His character was certainly far superior to Clinton's.

Bush 43 over Gore is not a surprise, and Bush/Kerry was virtually even, even though Kerry was one of the most pompous jackasses ever to run for the office.

But in 2008, on what basis did Obama earn anyone's endorsement? He'd never even run a lemonade stand. There was never any reason for anyone to endorse that guy.

Anyway, if you look at the county-by-county red/blue breakdowns over the past several Presidential elections, the vast majority of the country (as far as land area goes) is conservative, at least more conservative than liberal. It shouldn't be a surprise that more newspapers endorse GOP candidates, especially outside of the largest cities which usually vote heavily on the Democrat side.

Wow, I can't believe the Sarasota-Herald Tribune endorsed Gore in 2000. Sarasota is a heavily Republican city.

That's an interesting article.

btw, in 2000, Al Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee. As VP, he had already been displaying many of the character flaws that undoubtedly cost him the election that year. Seems like the people who knew him best, liked him least. How does a major party Presidential candidate lose his own state?? That should tell you something.

It's also interesting to me that Clinton got more endorsements than Bush 41 in 1992 (understandably, I think), and yet got fewer endorsements than Dole in 1996, after he'd been in office for four years? Character and scandals.

Originally posted by TheBloop
It shouldn't be a surprise that Nixon had more endorsements than McGovern, or that Ford had more than Carter. It certainly is no surprise that Reagan (2x) and Bush 41 (in 88) were more heavily endorsed than their ridiculous opponents. That doesn't mean that the papers liked doing it.

Hahaha.

Originally posted by TheBloop
It shouldn't be a surprise that Nixon had more endorsements than McGovern, or that Ford had more than Carter. It certainly is no surprise that Reagan (2x) and Bush 41 (in 88) were more heavily endorsed than their ridiculous opponents. That doesn't mean that the papers liked doing it.

I can understand the Dole over Clinton endorsements in a way, even th ...[text shortened]... than Dole in 1996, after he'd been in office for four years? Character and scandals.

See, basically, you're trying to patch up a theory that newspapers have a liberal bias by coming up with explanations for the "exceptions" which seem to outnumber what you believe to be the rule. By your assessment newspapers more often than not endorse the candidates they "don't like" because the Democrat is "ridiculous." But generally speaking a cigar is just a cigar and editors endorse Republicans more often because they relate to Republicans. They are conservative, or at least right of center. So when the majority of them endorse a Democrat, it's probably because the Republican is "ridiculous" by your definition.

Reporters do tend to be more liberal than the general population. It's what David Horowitz calls in derision a "missionary career" chosen by a liberal college student even though it provides low pay because it offers an opportunity to change the world and all (he includes teachers and public interest lawyers in the category). But an editor is looking at the whole thing from a different perspective, and there have been some classic fights over article rewrites, including a famous reporter who quit the NY Times during the 1980s because he was one of the few reporters who would leave San Salvador to get a story, and his editor would rewrite the articles to match up with the other papers' whose "reporters" rarely left the hotel and just waited for government press releases they could forward home.