The Los Angeles Times has recently made a big decision (at least it’s been mentioned in the paper several times, which leads one to belief it was a big decision for them)—they’re going to endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in since Richard Nixon in 1972. Now you may remember and/or know that Nixon won the election in ’72. He then resigned due to Watergate complications in ’74. (He also won in ’68 with the paper’s backing but lost to Kennedy in ’60, also with the paper’s backing.)
One article in the this week’s Opinion section admits and/or claims “The move back into the presidential endorsement business after such a long hiatus is an intriguing one, coming as it does at a moment when newspapers generally are declining in influence and fighting for their lives.” I wonder what led to this decision (okay, so I admit it, I’m intrigued). Do they think it is finally safe to endorse a candidate again since not so many people will be paying attention? As the article later points out: “What’s more, the power of the L.A. Times to have a dramatic influence on the outcome of presidential races has probably passed as well. Newspaper endorsements are not yet negligible in the Internet Age, but neither are they pivotal.” Do they just have to make their opinions known, no matter who may or may not be listening?
I’m not sure, nor can i glean from the article why they’ve suddenly changed policy. But at least the article does explain why the non-endorsement policy began: “As the Watergate scandal began to unfold in the spring of 1973, an ‘I told you so’ attitude swept the newsroom and spread all the way to the publisher’s suite. On Sept. 23, 1973, Otis Chandler announced to Times readers that the newspaper would quit endorsing presidential candidates. The ‘wide public exposure’ that candidates were then receiving on television, radio and newspapers made Times endorsements ‘dispensable,’ said the official announcement. ‘Our readers have more than ample information on which to make up their own minds.'” So they quit, well, because they were embarrassed (though that’s not directly stated) and because the the paper’s (any paper’s) endorsement had become “dispensable” thanks to modern technologies. This still does not explain why they’re returning now, when newspapers’ opinions are, if anything, more dispensable.
The article is hype, as is this one, of the we’re- making- a- big- decision- pay- attention- to- us- even- though- possibly- only- we- think- it’s- big- but- we- want- you- to- too variety. But, within this article were some interesting bits about the relationship of the paper and Nixon. The Times had apparently supported Nixon for many years, “And not just the support of the editorial pages—but the news pages as well. Under Chandler’s father, Norman, the newspaper had ceded both its political coverage and its editorials during the 1940s to an unabashed kingmaker named Kyle Palmer. In his role as Times political editor, Palmer helped massage the Nixon image past a series of scandals, including charges of Red-baiting and the allegation that he had taken illegal campaign contributions.” This editorial policy meant that “In many parts of the country, voters may have suspected that Nixon was a crook in the 1950s, but L.A. had no idea, thanks to The Times.” (Nerdy note to copy editors: I’m assuming The Times’ style is to capitalize the “T” in “The”; however, they miss it sometimes.)
I’m rarely one to trust news sources anyway, especially with regards to Nixon, so it’s interesting to find a paper admitting its use of editorial license was detrimental (if an Opinion article is admitting anything on behalf of the whole paper, which it’s not).
For more Nixon skepticism, read this article, another opinion article written July 2007, on the Nixon Library joining the National Archives. (This article’s pretty good, though there are, of course, more informative sources about the Nixon Library’s status or Nixon’s untrustworthy status.)
“Practical concerns also recommended keeping Nixon’s presidential documents out of Nixonian hands. Just as no president worked harder, through fair means or foul, to shape his public image while in office, so none pressed harder to revise history’s judgment after he served. He tried to remove and destroy some of his records and sued to suppress others. Supporting a decision against Nixon in one of those lawsuits, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens described him as ‘an unreliable custodian.'”