Dr. Kenneth Campbell
Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina. He is Interim Associate Director of Graduate Studies in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications and Director of Media & Civil Rights History Symposium. He is a former newspaper journalist.
Email: kcampbell@sc.edu
U.S. Election 2024
51. The powers that aren’t: News organizations and the 2024 election (Dr Nik Usher)
52. Newspaper presidential endorsements: Silence during consequential moment in history (Dr Kenneth Campbell)
53. Trump after news: a moral voice in an empty room? (Prof Matt Carlson, Prof Sue Robinson, Prof Seth C. Lewis)
54. Under media oligarchy: profit and power trumped democracy once again (Prof Victor Pickard)
55. The challenge of pro-democracy journalism (Prof Stephen D. Reese)
56. Grievance and animosity: Fracturing the digital news ecosystem (Dr Scott A. Eldridge II)
57. Considering the risk of attacks on journalists during the U.S. election (Dr Valerie Belair-Gagnon)
58. What can sentiment in cable news coverage tell us about the 2024 campaign? (Dr Gavin Ploger, Dr Stuart Soroka)
59. The case for happy election news: Why it matters and what stands in the way (Dr Ruth Palmer, Prof Stephanie Edgerly, Prof Emily K. Vraga)
60. Broadcast television use and the 2024 U.S. presidential election (Jessica Maki, Prof Michael W. Wagner)
61. Kamala Harris' representation in mainstream and Black media (Dr Miya Williams Fayne, Prof Danielle K. Brown)
62. Team Trump and the altercation at the Arlington military cemetery (Dr Natalie Jester)
63. Pulling their punches: On the limits of sports metaphor in political media (Prof Michael L. Butterworth)
This was supposed to be an essay about the frames and discourse in American newspaper editorial endorsements of the two leading presidential candidates – Kamala Harris and Donald J. Trump, just like my two previous essays in the 2016 and 2020 editions.
The revered Washington Post changed all of that on October 25th when it announced the mind-boggling and mind-blowing decision that it would not endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in 36 years. The newspaper that is credited with exposing the scandal that brought down a president, did not endorse a presidential candidate in the most consequential American presidential election ever. The Los Angeles Times had announced the same thing a few days earlier, although it would later say in a news story this is “one of the most astonishing presidential election cycles in modern American history.”
More than 5,000 online subscribers of the Washington Post cancelled their subscriptions within an hour; by Election Day, more than 250,000 digital subscriptions were cancelled. The Los Angeles Times’ editorial page editor and two editorial board members resigned. At the Washington Post, three editorial board members resigned; leading columnists, including Pulitzer Prize winners, protested the decision, calling it a mistake. More than 32,000 comments were left on the website.
On the heels of the Los Angeles Times’ and Washington Post’s non-endorsement decisions, Gannett Media – the nation’s largest newspaper chain, which includes USA Today (the fourth largest newspaper) – announced that its newspapers would not be endorsing in the presidential race. Others have done the same, whether in 2024 or before.
But was this all so unpredictable?
In the journal article “Editorial advocacy frames explanatory model: An analysis of newspapers withdrawing from presidential endorsements,” in 2016, coauthor Ernie Wiggins and I addressed the disturbing trend of major newspapers not endorsing in presidential races. We noted, “In what has been one of the most consistent public forums for the exchange of ideas, which is considered a foundation of democracy, key voices are choosing silence. And these may be voices that are among the most reasoned and well informed, despite attacks on their credibility.” Since then, the number of major American newspapers endorsing in presidential elections has dropped to about 35, with Harris endorsed by 30-plus and Trump three.
The primary reasons, which Wiggins and I identified back in 2016, are:
- Impartiality: The public does not separate news pages from editorials, thus endorsements create a sense of bias on the news pages.
- Information: Voters have more access to information these days, especially in the digital age, therefore they are as well-informed as editorialists.
- Independence: Voters should not be told how to vote.
- Influence: There is no evidence that newspaper endorsements are influential.
Even if those reasons ring true, we noted that newspapers endorsements have been an important voice in the public forum. “They are – certainly should be – a voice of reason, which is sorely needed in today’s polarization,” we wrote, particularly given the presence of misinformation and malinformation.
While we acknowledged that newspaper endorsements might influence only a few thousand people to vote a certain way, those might be the votes that put a candidate over the top, especially in a swing state. But influence is more than telling people how to vote, influence is helping readers understand and reason in order to come to the best decision. We discussed endorsements in the context of mass communications frames, or meaning as a result of the way information and opinion are presented. We pointed out that frames are always present in journalistic content, whether outwardly promoted or not. Thus, newspapers are not avoiding influencing voters by not endorsing.
As noted at the beginning, this was supposed to be an essay about the frames and discourse in newspaper editorial endorsements of the two leading presidential candidates, so let’s turn our attention there for a moment. The fact is, the newspaper frames of Donald Trump in the endorsements of his opponent Joe Biden in 2020 did not change in the 2024 endorsements of Harris. That made the non-endorsement decisions in 2024 more puzzling. Those frames, often strongly stated, are he’s unfit and has the wrong temperament for the presidency, and he’s dangerous to democracy. The frames of Harris focused on her optimism and leadership, but were typically moderate in tone.
It difficult to ignore that newspapers chose to pull out of endorsements when a Woman of Color was at the top of the ticket, even though they opposed her opponent previously and had supported a woman in 2016. It is also difficult to ignore the self-serving business interests of the billionaire owners of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times who led this year’s parade of non-endorsements.
Wiggins and I suggested that the newspapers should realize that their endorsements are advocacy frames that promote a position to help voters make up their minds or reaffirm a decision. As such, they are a significant voice in American democracy.