Media are not experts on incorporation
Original post made by Hal Bailey on Feb 24, 2009
Definitions by US Legal resources:
Expert Endorsement by Media
The journalistic expert doing the endorsement should be an expert. Furthermore the expert must also have evaluated the campaign and its propose using appropriate techniques; he/she must be qualified in the relevant area. A surgeon is not by definition an expert on pharmacology. The endorsement should be backed up by noted research, evaluations, and/or comparisons of options. Many editors and reporters attempt to create an "air" of expertise in the presentation of their expertise, but close examination will show that a media endorsement does not meet the requirements of an expert presentation.
on Feb 24, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Media are not experts on endorsements. Amen to that. Look at the candiadtes they have endorsed, and vote for incorporation...NOT.
As I stated in another blog...
Look at the history of media endorsements.
In 2006 Govenor Rod Blagojevich landed the backing of at least 23 Illinois newspapers in 2006, including the Post-Dispatch, The Daily Southtown, Chicago Sun-Times and The Courier News.
Didn't that turn out well?
And backing Vicki Koc, a candidate with absolutely no real executive experience.
Actually Vicki has no actual work experience at all! I don't want her taking Business One-O-One courses with my tax dollars.
A modest suggestion: If you really need some ink-stained wretch to help you make up your mind on how to vote, perhaps you should go bowling instead. Democracy would be better served. The ballot box already gets a steady supply of witless Xs.
I'm just not sure why anyone cares at all about endorsements. What we are talking about here is an opinion. Yes, there are more objective things like experience. I am really not sure why anyone should care what a small group of journalists and editors think about these things.
It is a tradition as old as this country. Personally, I believe that anyone who would let their vote be swayed by a newspaper endorsement is not qualified to vote - but then that is just my opinion.
I will admit that I've never quite understood why newspapers endorse candidates and measures. Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially, young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?
It is not the job or purpose of the news media to tell us what to think. It is the job and purpose of the news media to report facts and allow the citizens to interpret those facts.
The editorial section should be a place for social commentary, not a playground for political agenda.
Editorials can be informative, entertaining and spur discussion. There is merit in that. Where, though, is the merit in simply stating, "Vote for this candidate or that measure?"
We all get enough of that in television ads and signage.
There are already more than enough people out there telling us who to vote for. What we all really need is someone giving us the unbiased facts to make our own decisions.
This begs the question: When did news organizations become candidates' campaign headquarters?
on Feb 24, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Seems to me that, had the media endorsements gone the other way, incorporation opponents would be extolling the press's wisdom and perception.
on Feb 24, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Mike is a typical proponent of incorporation...'seems to me" comments that are not rational, makeing unfounded assumptions, voiceing speculative hypothesis, and bending the facts to suit your views.
Like many citizens in our country today, I do not believe the media should endorse candidates or ballot measures.