What are they worth?
Two North Carolina State University studies showed that celebrity endorsement of candidates would more likely hurt than help the politician. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution argues that political celebrities (think Sarah Palin) as opposed to celebrity celebrities (think Angelina Jolie) can have impact:
“The fact that [Palin] has endorsed, it does make a difference,” Garst said. “Obviously, it would be better if she were here. Nevertheless, you can use an endorsement to get earned media, and that’s what Handel is going to do.”
Earned media, in political parlance, includes newspaper articles and television coverage. The media cover the endorsement and give it more attention, and more voters hear about it.
Endorsements create buzz, which might bring certain politicians into the public’s attention.
What impact do newspapers and other media outlets have on voters when they make official endorsements? It’s not a new tradition for newspapers to make political endorsements, but it’s one that seems questionable. For papers that claim to be unbiased, they are demonstrating one, though in this case, at least the bias is evident when posted in the Opinion Editorial section. Still, if a newspaper claiming neutrality in general starts to pick favorites, what does this mean for how political items are reported upon? If The Newspaper’s Endorsed Candidate is involved in some ethically unappealing behavior, does The Newspaper report on that immediately, or is it ignored as much as possible so that The Newspaper does not look silly for putting its confidence in Endorsed Candidate in the first place?
How does a particular endorsement reflect upon the institution? If a newspaper has in recent years endorsed someone who later resigns from office due to legal problems, what merit, if any, does that newspaper’s present and future endorsements hold? If a candidate’s ethics or behaviors are questionable, it makes one curious why an entity would support him/her at all. For instance, in 2007 the Courant endorsed Eddie Perez. Here is an excerpt from the endorsement that reads like a backhanded compliment:
Despite a close-to-the-vest management style and a sometimes self-destructive stubbornness, Eddie A. Perez has been a good mayor of Hartford. He has appointed top people to key city posts, engaged the major issues of crime, education and economic development, and kindled momentum in the capital city.
He would be The Hartford Courant’s unequivocal choice for another term if not for his recent ethical lapses. A criminal investigation into renovations done on his home by a city contractor is clouding his administration. Nevertheless, he has owned up to mistakes, and we trust he will make no more.
The chastened mayor is still the strongest candidate in the field. His leadership has put Hartford on a more promising path than it’s followed in decades. He should be re-elected.
Translation: we do not hate him enough to not endorse him. If none of the candidates are strong enough to get behind 100%, why bother to endorse at all? Why not simply come out and say that one is wholly underwhelmed by all options and will not vote for any? There are many political contests in which the voters deserve better choices. Think of the message that would be send if those with some appearance of authority would stop mincing words and just say it: nobody running for such-and-such position has earned your vote in this election.
In any case, having access to information makes one seem like an authority. In the aforementioned example, the one positive feature of the endorsement is that it was explained. Thumbing through the August 5-12, 2010 edition of the Hartford News — a newspaper I tend to respect more than others — I saw plenty of endorsements, but no explanation for why these candidates were given the thumbs up. The candidates, incumbents and challengers, are all given more-or-less equal ink and list their profiles. The only possible “negative” piece of information is about Angel Morales’ status as an ex-offender, which is common knowledge and presented as how the candidate changed the direction of his life choices from negative to positive. This information is all very helpful, but still leaves one curious about why the newspaper leaned in one direction rather than another.
Getting endorsed by an organization or interest group tells the voter more in terms of where the candidate stands on a very specific issue, which is helpful if the voter cares about only one issue or if the candidate’s views on all issues exactly groove with one’s own. This type of endorsement also requires that the voter be familiar with the organization or interest group; moreso, it requires that the organization be upstanding. If the organization’s visible or behind-the-scenes dealings are the least bit shady, its association with the candidate could be damaging. Even an appearance of wrongdoing could be damaging, especially if voters do no independent research on accusations, opting instead to rely entirely on the news media to spoonfeed them information.
What should be the strongest influence on voters is the candidate’s voting record, general behavior, and/or service to the community.
Political Endorsements
What are they worth?
Two North Carolina State University studies showed that celebrity endorsement of candidates would more likely hurt than help the politician. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution argues that political celebrities (think Sarah Palin) as opposed to celebrity celebrities (think Angelina Jolie) can have impact:
Endorsements create buzz, which might bring certain politicians into the public’s attention.
What impact do newspapers and other media outlets have on voters when they make official endorsements? It’s not a new tradition for newspapers to make political endorsements, but it’s one that seems questionable. For papers that claim to be unbiased, they are demonstrating one, though in this case, at least the bias is evident when posted in the Opinion Editorial section. Still, if a newspaper claiming neutrality in general starts to pick favorites, what does this mean for how political items are reported upon? If The Newspaper’s Endorsed Candidate is involved in some ethically unappealing behavior, does The Newspaper report on that immediately, or is it ignored as much as possible so that The Newspaper does not look silly for putting its confidence in Endorsed Candidate in the first place?
How does a particular endorsement reflect upon the institution? If a newspaper has in recent years endorsed someone who later resigns from office due to legal problems, what merit, if any, does that newspaper’s present and future endorsements hold? If a candidate’s ethics or behaviors are questionable, it makes one curious why an entity would support him/her at all. For instance, in 2007 the Courant endorsed Eddie Perez. Here is an excerpt from the endorsement that reads like a backhanded compliment:
Translation: we do not hate him enough to not endorse him. If none of the candidates are strong enough to get behind 100%, why bother to endorse at all? Why not simply come out and say that one is wholly underwhelmed by all options and will not vote for any? There are many political contests in which the voters deserve better choices. Think of the message that would be send if those with some appearance of authority would stop mincing words and just say it: nobody running for such-and-such position has earned your vote in this election.
In any case, having access to information makes one seem like an authority. In the aforementioned example, the one positive feature of the endorsement is that it was explained. Thumbing through the August 5-12, 2010 edition of the Hartford News — a newspaper I tend to respect more than others — I saw plenty of endorsements, but no explanation for why these candidates were given the thumbs up. The candidates, incumbents and challengers, are all given more-or-less equal ink and list their profiles. The only possible “negative” piece of information is about Angel Morales’ status as an ex-offender, which is common knowledge and presented as how the candidate changed the direction of his life choices from negative to positive. This information is all very helpful, but still leaves one curious about why the newspaper leaned in one direction rather than another.
Getting endorsed by an organization or interest group tells the voter more in terms of where the candidate stands on a very specific issue, which is helpful if the voter cares about only one issue or if the candidate’s views on all issues exactly groove with one’s own. This type of endorsement also requires that the voter be familiar with the organization or interest group; moreso, it requires that the organization be upstanding. If the organization’s visible or behind-the-scenes dealings are the least bit shady, its association with the candidate could be damaging. Even an appearance of wrongdoing could be damaging, especially if voters do no independent research on accusations, opting instead to rely entirely on the news media to spoonfeed them information.
What should be the strongest influence on voters is the candidate’s voting record, general behavior, and/or service to the community.
Related Posts
The Problem With Pedestals
Is this what Democracy Looks Like?
A Little Something (December 2020)