Staff Blog
Ferrick and the Times on the Tierney question
A little follow-up on the Inquirer non-endorsement endorsement. Tom Ferrick has it from "insiders at the paper," and the New York Times has it from a "member of the editorial board," that the pro-McCain piece was added at the behest of Tierney. This raises the question, of course, of Tierney's pledge not to interfere with the editorial side of the paper — although I don't know exactly what that pledge says, and I guess it could have meant the news department (he was already sitting on the editorial board, after all. That's interfering right there). In any case, we called Tierney to ask about it. Waiting on a call back.
Ferrick also goes into another issue here, and I think does a good job sussing it out: Do editorial endorsements matter?
At the risk of sounding like an editorial, the answer is: it depends.
In a super-high visibility race (like McCain-Obama) they matter very little. Most folks have made up their own minds by now, thank you, and don’t need guidance from an editorial board. The editorial either re-affirms their decision or ticks them off. It rarely sways.
In a low-to-no visibility race, such as for judge, it can mean a lot. Voters often don’t have a clue who is running and a newspaper endorsement acts as a useful guide. I know folks who clip out the summary of endorsements the paper prints every Election Day and take it to the polls for the races lower on the ballot.
On all races in between, it depends on what the candidate makes of the endorsement. It has greatest value if they reprint it and circulate it – or use in their TV and radio ads – because it serves as an independent source that validates their candidacy. It also may sway undecided voters.
Bottom line, this whole Inquirer endorsement question is more important for what it might say about the Inquirer than for what it might say about the Presidential election.
