Record Searchlight can't afford to endorse Presidential candidate....

I've always been ambivalent as to whether a newspaper needs to "endorse" a Presidential candidate. I can make up my mind, thank you very much.

However, the way Silas Lyons backed out of endorsing a Presidential candidate in Sunday's editorial was incredibly lame, in my opinion.

Below are all his lame excuses, followed by quite a healthy, heated debate in the comments section.

Lyons: We'll sit out the presidential vote
By Silas Lyons, Columnist (Contact)
Sunday, October 12, 2008

Long-time readers will no doubt find something missing in the Record Searchlight this election season: a presidential endorsement.

Has the paper lost its nerve? Does the editorial board secretly support Ralph Nader, but not have the guts to say it out loud?

For the record, within the coming week we'll be moving on from state propositions to take positions on the Redding and Anderson city councils, on our representative to Congress, on the state Assembly race, on local school bonds.

But not on the next president.

Over and over, both in this space and out in the community, I've talked about the Record Searchlight's focus on local news.

I've acknowledged to anyone who would listen that we don't have any special expertise on global energy policy, the war in Iraq, or the nation's economy.

Collectively, our newsroom knows more about what's going on in the north state than anybody else around.

And that's how it should be. So that's where we focus our editorial energies as well.

When we endorse for other offices, we sit down with the candidates and ask questions.

We get a sense of their values and priorities, their grasp of the issues and their commitment to the people they'll represent.

Rep. Wally Herger and his Democratic rival, Jeff Morris, both came in for conversations on Friday. We've interviewed all the candidates for Redding and Anderson seats.

Alas, we have no such access to Barack Obama and John McCain (who have both long since placed California's 55 electoral votes in the Democrat's column and moved on).

We also aren't so arrogant as to think we're the sole, or even primary, source of news on national politics for our readers. The sheer volume of such coverage, and opinions on it, is staggering this year. Be it Rush Limbaugh or a kid on YouTube or Chris Matthews on MSNBC, you're getting your fill of national political advice from people who actually live and breathe national politics.
We trust you'll make an informed decision.

Here is a review of the comments on the above story to date...
A very interesting read in deed:

Posted by Treebones on October 12, 2008 at 7:35 a.m.
I don't understand why a newspaper has to endorse any ballot measure or politician. Put a sign up in your yard at home or a bumpersticker on your car like the rest of us. Your explanation concerning the presidential vote flies in the face of your recent endorsement of Mr. Herger's vote on the first financial bailout plan. Are you informed enough in the various aspects of global finance to endorse his vote? I think not. But you felt compelled to endorse it anyway.
I don't get it.

Posted by rcalexia on October 12, 2008 at 8:21 a.m.
Endorse McCain, you may lose some subscribers. Endorse Obama, you will lose many subscribers. Economically prudent but cowardly behavior.

Posted by richsteele on October 12, 2008 at 8:39 a.m.
in response to Treebones
Believe it not Treebones I agree with you. Newspapers are suppose to print unbiased news. Enforcements are not unbiased and after the endorsement any information will be tainted. This is very evident in the mainstream media where they have taken up positions forcing most of us that want to figure it out to flip from news source to the other in hopes of getting both sides or at least an unbiased report.

Posted by ceejaycam on October 12, 2008 at 8:52 a.m.
Personally I think it is a great idea for the paper to forget about endorsing either of the Presidential candidates...
After all..the Record Searchlight endorsed Bush twice ( as I recall)...and look where we are..The first term endorsement of Bush should have been sufficient..if anyone at the paper was paying attention to the national news!
As far as an endorsement of Herger..same thing..why would you endorse a person who has done nothing to represent us..A person who only serves at the pleasure of the Bush administration?

Posted by john on October 12, 2008 at 9:01 a.m.
That didn't stop them from endorsing Bush TWICE.
Those two endorsements came from corporate headquarters. Want the reference to it?
This time that same conservative corporate headquarters knows Mccain is neither conservative nor worth endorsing. I'll bet we find the same sort of non-committal editorial in many of the papers which are owned by the RS's corporate masters.

Posted by fromthesixities on October 12, 2008 at 9:09 a.m.
The first responsibility of any media outlet - newspaper, TV, web site - is simply to make money. Dr. Walter Gieber taught me that in my Journalism 101 class at San Francisco State in 1962. The R-S is doing just that --- ducking the single most important issue of the day so as not to loose money by exposing themselves to an irate advertising base or loose a precious subscriber or two.The impact of the presidency reaches into every nook and cranny of the country -- look at what effect the policies of the last few administrations has been on Market Street and even down to Lincoln Street. The R-S is being somewhat gutless in not making a presidential endorsement in my humble opinion but at least it won't loose money.

Posted by NorCalHeathen3 on October 12, 2008 at 9:35 a.m.
BTW - Two new newspaper endorsements for Obama today... these come from a big-time swing state to boot - OHIO!
The Dayton Daily News AND The Toledo Blade have both announced endorsements for Obama.
I take the RS refusal to endorse a presidential candidate as a positive sign... It's certainly better than a McCain endorsement!

Posted by Ken on October 12, 2008 at 9:38 a.m.
The staff of the RS are just as well equipped to render a judgement on the presidential election as are all of us citizens who will be voting.
So, either you should stand up and tell us what you think, or you should follow your own logic and urge us to stay at home election day, since we don't have any special expertise either.
Which is it?

Posted by john on October 12, 2008 at 9:38 a.m.
in response to fromthesixities
You might want to read the Constitution. The press has a responsibility within democracy which overrides the money motive.

Posted by Procopius on October 12, 2008 at 10 a.m.
"Collectively, our newsroom knows more about what's going on in the north state than anybody else around. And that's how it should be. So that's where we focus our editorial energies as well."
Other than running editorials from several conservative columnists who lately have nothing to offer other than tired anti-Obama screeds.

Posted by Buzz_Fledderjohn on October 12, 2008 at 10:26 a.m.
Translation: Like most educated, rational people, we can't find one single reason to recommend four more years of GOP leadership. But we're too cowardly to say it out loud.
BOOOOCK bock bock bock bock bock BOOOCK bock bock bock bock bock BOOOCK bock bock bock bock BOOOOCK bock bock bock bock bock BOOOCK bock bock bock bock bock BOOOCK bock bock bock bock...
So much for the "Fourth Estate" of democracy.

Posted by Buzz_Fledderjohn on October 12, 2008 at 10:31 a.m.
in response to Treebones
It's called the "Opinion" page because that's where the editorial staff and others are supposed to editorialize.
Obviously, the editors of the paper don't have to express opinions. Witness the gutless capitulation to the majority of the R-S subscribers in this very Op-Ed.

Posted by Studmonkey on October 12, 2008 at 11:24 a.m.
After twice endorsing our Village Idiot of a president, along with countless endorsements of Wally "The Carp" Herger, you now choose to go sit on the sidelines of one of the more important presidential campaigns in recent memory?What's the matter? The idea of endorsing Grandpa Munster and "You Betcha" Palin too odious for even you guys to bear? Just couldn't manage to find it in yourself to continue pandering to the rubes out there? Why didn't you run one of your traditional "internal editorial caucuses," then place a call to your corporate headquarters to get your marching orders on who to really support? You know, your usual method of operation...I always founded amazing that with all the more liberal members of your editorial staff your vote always managed to go deep and darkly conservative. Golly...The bottom line is you could have wound up either going against the grain and supporting a Democratic candidate for a change or holding your nose and making your traditional Republican endorsement. You chose to do neither.To quote Maj. Margaret 'Hot Lips' O'Houlihan, "You're nothing but a spineless, mealymouthed, fly-fishing impostor!"In this instance, Silas, you're the real thing, dude...

Posted by JustBob on October 12, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.
I was wrong! I predicted long ago that a newspaper editorial staff foolish enough to endorse GW Bush TWICE! would surely endorse McCain. It appears that McCain is so lame that even the Record Searchlight can't bring itself to endorse him. In other words, they see him as worse than Bush? Is this possible?
It is a sad day when the Republican option is so unacceptable that the only other realistic option is our first African American president--but the R/S is unable to recognize, celebrate, and endorse what is obvious to the rest of us: change has already happened!

Posted by walterwhite on October 12, 2008 at 12:36 p.m.
It is pretty obvious by the articles they print that they would endorse Obama. Maybe they don't want to come out and endorse Obama in a community that is largely conservative. It all boils down to subscriptions and dollars. Shows a lack of balls on the part of the RS but does show some business sense.

Posted by Commando on October 12, 2008 at 12:57 p.m.
Wow,
We are all coming together here...in agreement on newspapers stying out of the "endorsement" business. Well said from some posters about the need to stive towards being unbiased. Otherwise you become FOX News...or MSNBC.
But what I would like to know...is this RS a permanent thing? If it is...that is admirable. But if its just because a conservative publisher in a conservative area is dissapointed in the lack of conservatism in this years election, but remains open to it in the future...then its just another form of bias.

Posted by Buzz_Fledderjohn on October 12, 2008 at 1:45 p.m.
in response to Commando
> Otherwise you become FOX News...or MSNBC.
Let it be said that Fox News is biased to the right in the extreme, whereas MSNBC has Keith Olbermann and others on the left, but it also has Glenn Beck and others on the right.
Fox is run by Rupert Murdock, who is a far-right-wing zealot. And Microsoft, which owns MSNBS, is run by Bill Gates, who is a moderate Republican. Conservatives pull the strings at both networks.
NeoCons never complain about Fox, the most biased network on TV. Apparently, it's not bias that bothers them. They just think it's their God-given right to live in a country where nobody is allowed to disagree with them.

Posted by Buzz_Fledderjohn on October 12, 2008 at 1:56 p.m.
It is a sad day when the Republican option is so unacceptable that the only other realistic option is our first African American president...
Huh?
What?
Come again?

Posted by Zebrareader on October 12, 2008 at 2:04 p.m.
Editor Silas Lyons, no one will ever accuse you of being overly brave. Cluck, cluck, cluck.....

Posted by willie on October 12, 2008 at 2:13 p.m.
Maybe the RS is ashamed to endorse Sen. McCain & afraid to endorse Sen. Obama.

Posted by john on October 12, 2008 at 2:25 p.m.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003873282
Published: October 12, 2008 5:30 PM ET NEW YORK Barack Obama picked up at least 12 newspaper endorsements this weekend, including six in swing states Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri. John McCain, as far as we know, gained none.
The Wisconsin State Journal and The Sun of San Bernardino had backed Bush in 2004. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch called Obama's opponent, John McCain, "the incredible shrinking man" who had made a horrific pick for his running mate.
Backing Obama: In Ohio, The Blade in Toledo and the Dayton Daily News; the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The Tennessean of Nashville, the Wisconsin State Journal. the Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times, and in California the Fresno Bee, Sacramento Bee, Contra Costa Times, The Herald of Monterrey, and The Sun of San Bernardino (which had picked Bush over Kerry)."
Apparently more than few newspapers see it otherwise. They think they SHOULD endorse someone, Editor and Publisher will be posting on some 300 newspapers endorsements this week. Obama is currently up 21-9 in their survey.
http://www.eandppub.com/
The RS saw fit to endorse the worst President ever twice, and now decides it is no longer in that business.
The ink on this editorial should be yellow.

Posted by walterwhite on October 12, 2008 at 4:25 p.m.
in response to john
Its no secret the media in this country is liberal. After all their leftist leaning ways are what gave birth to Fox news. Having the endorsements of the media should be a forgone conclusion for any democratic candidate. When was the last time the newspapers endorsed a republican?

Posted by hawkeye on October 12, 2008 at 5:54 p.m.
The Record Searchlight redefines "yellow journalism". Think they'll quit publishing Sowell and Krauthammer now that they are incapable of making an endorsement on the national level? I'm glad I was already ahead of the curve and quit my subscription a year ago.

Posted by Buzz_Fledderjohn on October 12, 2008 at 6:13 p.m.
When was the last time the newspapers endorsed a republican?
The Record Searchlight endorsed George W. Bush the last two presidential elections. They'll probably endorse Wally Herger once again. I'll be shocked if they don't endorse Jim Nielson.
This paper panders to the majority of its subscribers more than any other newspaper I've ever read.

Posted by thebug on October 12, 2008 at 9:49 p.m.
In one of the most important elections in American history the Record Searchlight gives us a limp wristed cold fish no endorsement. That was some stellar journalism there Lyons.

Posted by Stoneboiler on October 12, 2008 at 10:05 p.m.
Orange County North Palm tree capitol of the world.
This is probably the most important election in the last 100 years.
Your excuse sounds par for the course.It's more of same dereliction of duty that has failed to adequately ask the right question over stolen elections, an illegal war, running the economy and the country into the ground.
Obama's mother was white, so why not print half of an endorsement?

Posted by randy on October 12, 2008 at 10:09 p.m.
The RS would never endorse a Dem and they are just to embarassed by McCain to stand by him. Good time to play the "we don't endorse card".

Posted by bentoman on October 13, 2008 at 12:10 a.m.
I think the RS's refusal to endorse a presidential candidate comes from knowing that their two endorsements of Bush was a catastrophic big mistake, and they're too proud to endorse McCain because they know he is going to lose BIGTIME.
I guess they figure that rigging the local elections for Superior Court Judge is enough of a success for them. What they did to Jim Reed was really despicable. After they knew it was too late to pull his ad, they ran their little judge endorsement letter.
Yes, RS you are big fish in this pathetic, small universe of yours called Shasta County, but fortunately for the rest of us and the world at large, there are a lot of people who are not small-minded and corrupt. Our nation is going to undergo a BIG change in the next four years. You guys had better get with the program!

Posted by HugvesAchet on October 13, 2008 at 6:38 a.m.
Lyons claims not to be endorsing anyone for the presidential position this year BULL CRAP ! Did any one read Saturdays editorial page? 100% conservative, not one progressive commentary on the entire page. If that is not an endorsement, what the hell is?

Posted by yellowhak1 on October 13, 2008 at 8:10 a.m.
in response to ceejaycam
if mccain was born in panama where was obama born? just wondering.

Posted by caltest on October 13, 2008 at 8:51 a.m.
Lyons,
you and your paper are a joke.
you say, "Alas, we have no such access to Barack Obama and John McCain (who have both long since placed California's 55 electoral votes in the Democrat's column and moved on)."
when was the last time you interviewed GWB, prior to endorsing him in 2004 and 2000? both elections the state voted for the democrate.
This time it is different. mccain and palin are so pathetic even the rightwing record searchlight cannot hold their nose and endorse them.
If you are really in touch with the politics of the north state, you would see that change is in the air. there is a good chance that Obama will get a significant percent of the north state's votes this year. He probably won't get more votes than mccain, but it will be a significant count. more than any other democrate in the last 50 years.

Posted by Buzz_Fledderjohn on October 13, 2008 at 9:12 a.m.
in response to yellowhak1
> if mccain was born in panama where was obama born? just wondering.
Honolulu, Hawaii

Posted by christinehackman on October 13, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.
in response to yellowhak1
John McCain is beginning to hear fat ladies singing everywhere!

Posted by GoGriz on October 13, 2008 at 1:46 p.m.
in response to christinehackman
You got that right! And they aren't singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".
Obama/Biden 08!!

Posted by Ken on October 13, 2008 at 2:29 p.m.
in response to walterwhite
It is far from obvious to me why you think a paper that endorsed Bush twice would "pretty obviously" endorse Obama.
The contrary seems far more likely.

Image Source: Stolen directly from Uncle E's Musical Nightmares.