Newspapers feel entitled to influence votes

Some news organizations and writer/reporter/columnists cling to their power of controlling awards worth millions of dollars and generations of emotions. A strange thing to aspire to to begin with. In high stakes baseball awards, you spend ages chasing your tail around while they snicker wisely on the sidelines:

"But what'’s to become of the newspaper endorsement in the age of the Internet, when anyone can be a publisher and when a popular e-mail or Web site can reach more eyeballs than many dailies?

Editorial endorsements loom like a lightning rod above the world of journalism, attracting reader accusations of political bias throughout the newspaper. Picking candidates has long been a controversial practice in the industry. "“Don'’t let anyone tell you how to mark your ballot," wrote Allen H. Neuharth, founder of USA Today, which doesn't make endorsements, in a column two years ago. "“Many newspaper editors and owners still cling to the old-fashioned idea that they know better than you how you should vote."

• Then, why are baseball reporters and columnists allowed to advocate votes for high stakes baseball awards by the political group, BBWAA?

• "MANY NEWSPAPER EDITORS AND OWNERS STILL CLING TO THE OLD FASHIONED IDEA THAT THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU HOW YOU SHOULD VOTE." Yes, so why do many continue to allow their employees to advocate high stakes baseball awards?

At many papers, the practice is seen as a necessary rite. "I think it'’s one of our most important responsibilities," Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post'’s editorial page editor, wrote in a column last month.

• "It's one of our most important responsibilities," Washington Post editorial page editor. Really? Pal, you're an elitist. You're not responsible for any of my beliefs or behaviors.

Ann Brown, editorial page editor of the Arizona Daily Star, said endorsements offer voters a deeper, analytical view of the election. "“We feel that we have spent hours and hours talking to these candidates and researching the issues,"” she said. "“This is something that the readers don'’t get to do. When we give our opinion in the general election, I think we'’re sharing some of our unique insight."

• Again, the newspaper culture--they think they're better--nowhere are their own biases, connections, backgrounds addressed. This is the essence of scholarship, in evaluating any opinion. You don't automatically get the pass because someone I don't know has hired you.

• These remarks were all made in an article from the Congressional Quarterly about political elections, but apply equally to influencing baseball awards voters. The ever imperialistic Tim Kurkjian's comments about his own non-voting status are still quite interesting. He said he voted for 10 years, though is no longer allowed to. There's more to this than what he's saying; after 10 years, even if he left a publication and moved to a town that had no team, he'd still retain his voting rights. The fact that he's "not allowed" to vote now has to mean that one of his current employers (ESPN is one) is not allowing him to vote.

Remarks in column by Elizabeth Wasserman, Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/16/06

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon