Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Roanoke, Va. today. (Getty photo by Joe Raedle / October 17, 2008)
However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.
In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.
The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.
This article is literally just what the headline serves up. An endorsement made by the Chicago Tribune for Barack Obama for president. Obviously, this is a one-sided piece. It may not be breaking news, but it caught my eye because although I've heard about presidential endorsements, I had never heard of a newspaper doing so. I thought newspapers, at least such large ones like the Tribune had to remain unbiased and simply delegate information to readers. Upon reading this article I learned otherwise. It may not be front page news, but I believe this whole issue is noteworthy and for that reason chose to explore it a little further.
Being an endorsement obviously raises a red flag to readers that what they are about to read is all for something, in this case Barack Obama. Although this is indeed the case with this article, there are times in which they recognize that he isn't perfect. Granted, it's not like they are trying to gain support for Senator John McCain, but the Tribune seems to be trying to maintain a level head while making it's points.
Facts aren't necessarily substantiated, no sources were used; the piece truly is an editorial. What strikes me most, however, is that it's from the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. There wasn't just one person sitting down choosing to share their opinions with the world, this was a board of fairly educated individuals who felt strongly enough about who they chose to support in this presidential election that they elaborated collectively about it.
Being a supporter of Obama I did enjoy this article, but not solely for that reason. The way it was written made me feel as though they [the writers] were speaking to me on a human-to-human level. I felt connected and as though they just wanted to share some information they saw valuable to me, without making me do anything. I wish this element of humanness was in more pieces of writing, although I realize that it isn't always appropriate in certain situations. It makes just makes me enjoy reading about newsworthy topics so much more.
One aspect of this article that I thought best exemplified the attempt of newspapers like the Chicago Tribune to become more interactive with its online readers was the presence of polls and areas in which people could voice their opinion on the endorsement.
For the article in full head on over here
If you get a chance go ahead and give this a listen too, I found it pretty interesting:
Chicago Tribune Editorial Page Editor Bruce Dold talks to WGN-AM's John Williams about the newspaper's endorsement of Barack Obama: Audio here
3 comments:
Wow. Is that appropriate for a newspaper to endorse one candidate over another? Isn't the purpose of current journalism to provide unbiased information about both candidates (or all candidates for that matter) in the election? I thought that we were in an era were journalists were not supposed to express their opinion or interject it in their pieces.
I don't agree with the Tribune's decision to publish their endorsement for Barack Obama. If they want to endorse Barack Obama, that's fine, but now that they have published their opinion, the readers are going to question if they are receiving all of the information. Or if the information is being worded to make "their candidate" sound better. This was a poor decision on the Tribune's part, in my opinion.
Newspapers have been endorsing politicians since their establishment, and I personally don't think it's inappropriate for them to do so.
Here's why...
Our country has grown so partisan over the last few decades. It's either Republican or Democrat...very little in between. The Chicago Tribune is looking past this, and yes, to many it will look unprofessional because they think it's favoring one party. They're favoring who they believe is the best person to do the job.
Also, this is an editorial. It is meant to represent the opinions of the editorial board, and not the entire Tribune Co. In fact, the Tribune has a very conservative history and conservative readership base.
Well, it's certainly historic. I think it's amusing how the Tribune tries to dig up instances where they differed from the Republican line. The best they could come up with was Teddy's run in 1912 for the Bull-Moose Party. Is endorsing a former Republican president really that much of a stretch? I truly love the Tribune.
Post a Comment