Media favour Kerry

Dasu Krishnamoorty 

Americans will know on Wednesday who their President will be for the next four years. It is natural for media to do their bit to influence the minds of the voters, though they may falter in monitoring the outcome of their effort. It happened in India several times. Here in the US, newspapers and other media choose their favourites in the two or three weeks preceding the election indicating to their audiences whom they should vote for and why. Four days from the election day, John Kerry is leading George Bush 149 to 126 in endorsements and in terms of circulation 17.7 million to 11.6 million. The Massachusets senator has the support of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Detroit Free Press, The Miami Herald, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and both Seattle newspapers. President Bush enjoys the support of The Chicago Tribune, The New York Post, The Arizona Republic, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Columbus Dispatch, The Dallas Morning News, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Washington Times and both Cincinnati newspapers.  

Even if Bush manages to reduce the gap in the number of newspapers, the circulation tally of Kerry is too high to reach. And, circulation is what matters. 

But the most significant happening is Kerry hijacking 35 newspapers that have backed Bush in 2000. Nine of traditional Bush supporters declared they are neutral now. Bush could manage to snatch only five newspapers from the Democratic camp. The endorsements season has nearly ended leaving the electoral arena free for the voters to accept or reject media endorsements of candidates. Bush and Kerry monopolize the endorsement scene. If media can wean some prospective voters from the rival camp to vote for a candidate of their choice, that conversion will be a marginal gain for the candidate in swing states. This is now a crucial factor because of the very thin margins of victory predicted by several polls. 

The voters’ mind is inscrutable. In the case of the incumbent, they will go by the approximation of his performance to promise. The Democratic candidate will be judged by how he has done in campaigning, by his party manifesto, his performance in the presidential debates and the Senate. Why then are these endorsements? Editor and Publisher says, "Yes, everyone knows newspaper picks in presidential races don’t count for very much, but they do mean something. Surveys by E&P and others in previous years showed that roughly five to ten per cent of voters (or more) felt that editorials had some influence when they cast their ballots. In a battleground state, that’s not insignificant."    

The fact that a newspaper is traditionally a supporter of Democrats or Republicans does not mean that all its readers accept its endorsement. Therefore, to automatically convert circulations into electorate is not a sound principle. Harry Jaff, national editor of Washingtonian, asks, "But do endorsements really count," and says, "The answer seems to be less and less." Dean of the University of Maryland’s journalism department Tom Kunikel thinks that newspapers do not have the influence they had when they were the only game in town. Jaff quotes Joshua Micah Marshal , author of the online Talking Points Memo, as saying, "I tend to think that they (newspapers) don’t have much effect unless they cut heavily against expectations. I believe The Financial Times just endorsed Kerry, for instance." E&P thinks that contrary to popular misconception that most newspaper endorsements inevitably go Democrat, surveys in the past have shown that the majority, in fact, backs Republicans.  

Newspapers have their own rationale for extending or denying support. The New York Times endorses John Kerry for president because "Voting for president is a leap of faith." In an editorial entitled ‘John Kerry for President", the Times says, "We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry`s wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry`s service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

"There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush`s disastrous tenure. The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

"He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq. The president`s refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances."  The Boston Globe followed the example of its parent The New York Times. At the same time, Globe also published a negative editorial endorsement of Bush. The Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s No.1 newspaper, also lent support to Kerry just three days ago. 

Unlike the Times, Washington Post finds merit in both candidates and even while endorsing Kerry does not dismiss Bush out of hand. Recommending Kerry, the Post says in an editorial, "As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush`s term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry`s life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation`s trust to lead for the next four years. His actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have troubled him much. 

"But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes that we believe are essential. 

"In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable.

"SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? Here`s why we say yes. Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism.

"On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection.

"We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable."

Bush gets support from the largest circulated daily in Texas The Houston Chronicle. The paper seeks a second term for Bush in these terms, "Since then, the most devastating terrorist attack on the United States, eclipsing even Pearl Harbor, has placed new imperatives on the voters` choice of the nation`s chief executive. Despite the Chronicle editorial board`s disagreements with some of the president`s policies, both foreign and domestic, the Chronicle believes today`s criteria, combined with Bush`s long record as chief executive of Texas and the United States, again recommends President Bush to lead the nation. The Chronicle endorses his candidacy for re-election to a second term.

"The Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, promises to gain the support of France, Germany, Russia and other key U.S. allies. However, Kerry has articulated neither vision nor tactical plan for winning in Iraq and bringing U.S. forces home."

The Chicago Tribune, leader in the state of Illinois, endorsed Bush two weeks ago. The paper said, "There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. ... But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age — a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate — the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States."

Bush received support from one of the leading tabloids in the US The New York Post. The paper says, "There are many issues before the electorate, but none more important than the War on Terror. So, let’s be clear. America will be safer with George Bush in the White House. Not totally safe; even the President concedes that. But safer; that’s quite good enough for us.. On Sept 11, 2001, he was a rock. Since then, he has prosecuted War on Terror with determination."

Unfortunately for Bush, The Wall Street Journal does not endorse candidates.

Several newspapers friendly to Bush hitherto abandoned him this time. The Chicago Sun-Times joined a growing number of American newspapers to withdraw support for Bush. A Sun-Times editorial listed a number of reasons for withdrawing its support from Mr Bush. The administration, it said, had been "wilfully and woefully unprepared to face" the insurgency in Iraq. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were "a costly misstep in a time of war" and the paper was concerned by the secrecy of Mr Bush`s "subordinates such as Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft".  Mr Kerry, the paper said, acknowledged that the "United States is a world leader, not a rogue state".

Other Bush deserters include The Los Angeles Daily News, The Memphis Commercial Appeal and Bush`s hometown newspaper, The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas. For The Memphis Commercial Appeal in Tennessee, it is the first time the paper has backed a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, 40 years ago.

Its editor, Chris Peck, said, "We just felt that the whole situation in Iraq has led to a really disturbing relationship between the US and other countries. (Mr Bush) has also created a polarised environment in this country and we feel we have to find some common ground."

According to Howard Kurtz, staff writer of Washington Post, even many editorial page editors say they do not believe their endorsements move many voters in an age of round-the-clock opinion-slinging on television and online. But the Bush defections may reflect a degree of disillusionment with the president, at least among opinion leaders, principally on Iraq but on domestic issues, as well.

Nolan Finley, who runs The Detroit News editorial page, disagrees: "I`ve heard people speculate they don`t mean as much anymore, but I think they`re influential still, particularly in close races. Voters are looking for answers in an election like this one." The decision not to endorse was "an agonizing process," he said, noting that the News has backed every Republican seeking the White House since Ulysses S. Grant.