At the last federal election the Sydney Morning Herald decided to sit on the fence and not endorse Howard or Latham. This raises a couple of questions, should the media be endorsing candidates and if they do should they endorse the leader of a party in a Presidential manner, or local candidates as befitting a parliamentary system? A third question is, should bloggers or alternative media endorse candidates?

The United States is only a couple of weeks from a mid-term Congressional election. Since the states run the elections, they are bundling in Governor's races, local assembly elections, Attorney's General, County elections, referendums, propositions - you name it. The United States is under the grips of a civic fest.

The editorial boards of newspapers are endorsing candidates every second day. I am not sure why an editorial board feels it has that right, morally or ethically; as individuals they have the vote. I am not sure why they feel that their weighted opinion matters. News is like a war film, which must always offer a new corpse, news must always have something new. It is not an empirical form of study, it is a constant series of statements with no guaranteed reflection on truth, integrity, quality or even internal logical consistency.

Which is fine; news is first and foremost an entertainment form. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is nonetheless. News and editorial boards are subject to all the vagaries and pressures of a commercial operation - they will not go against their audience's or customer's opinion.

This was seen greatly during George Bush's roller coaster rating ride which shot up to 80% before dropping to under 40%. The news media mimicked the opinions and prejudices of their audience through this whole period as their customers went from near unanimous support, to increasing dissent and disapproval. As a result the commercial media's opinions are reflections rather than actual opinions.

Consequently, I don't think the media, or editorial boards has any place endorsing candidates. Obviously they have the liberty to do so, and continue to do so, but I question the value of any such endorsement.

Another question is whether collectives; such as newspapers, special interests, unions, etc have a place endorsing candidates. This is a more difficult question as political parties are themselves special interest groups dedicated to endorsing candidates that are electable in sufficient numbers to form government.

Having the backing of special interest groups may be important for a candidate, especially in the area of money, support, warm-bodies for election tasks and other administrative tasks; but I fail to see the value for an individual to make any ballot decision from such an endorsement. I have often viewed the endorsements of this nature with amusement.

Bloggers will be facing a conundrum as they grow in audience and influence. Since bloggers tend to be individuals, rather than special interests of commercial or policy interest, I have less of a problem with bloggers endorsing candidates than newspaper editorial boards.

Yet one of the purposes of the secret ballot is so an individual can have their vote be anonymous; at the time of submitting the ballot and in the future, to avoid any potential retribution - civil or governmental.

I also expect that many bloggers who do endorse candidates, will not do so out of an understanding of the parliamentary system, instead endorsing a Presidential party leader, such as Howard or Beazley, entirely forgetting the parliamentary nature of our system.

My feeling is I don't have a problem with bloggers endorsing candidates as they are individuals; not that I will be doing it. I do have an issue with editorial boards and special interests (outside of political parties running candidates) who do - but not to the extent that I would deny them that liberty.

cam

More Reading on Endorsements

• Endorsements
• Media
• Endorsing Candidates