Barack Obama is winning the presidential race, at least among U.S. newspapers. By the latest count, Obama has garnered the endorsement of 121 newspapers, compared to John McCain’s 42. Counting circulation, the Obama backers reach 13.5 million readers, to McCain’s 3.7 million.
Significantly, 26 of those papers supported President Bush’s re-election in 2004.
Among Obama’s newspapers:
- The generally conservative but “without ambivalence” Washington Post
- The “without hesitation” Los Angeles Times
- The “proud to endorse” Chicago Tribune
- Former Bush backers Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman
- And, in New Mexico, Las Cruces Sun-News
McCain’s endorsements include:
- The Dallas Morning-News, citing “the experience gap”
- The Boston Herald, which notes the Oval Office is “no place for on-the-job training”
- And the Roswell Daily Record, saying the nation needs “a seasoned leader”
Because journalists like nothing better than examining their own navels, much discussion has centered on whether their endorsements have any value. Some, like Al Neuharth, have even advised newspapers to avoid endorsements.
(A personal note: As former managing editor of the late, lamented Albuquerque Tribune, I repeatedly fought losing battles to get us out of the endorsement business for all but lower-ballot races. Were readers really pinning their choice for president on our opinion? Did we have an iota of power against millions upon millions of campaign ads? Couldn’t we devote that time, effort and newsprint to tracking down and printing basic facts about the candidates?)
You can weigh in with your opinion. Do you use newspaper endorsements? To vote for their candidates or against them? In which races? Do tell.






