Editorial Endorsements and Fraud

At one time the editorial boards of major newspapers included accomplished and broadly experienced journalists. The editorial staffs of respected national newspapers still include individuals who have earned advanced academic degrees, with honors, from nationally recognized colleges and universities or those who, by their recognized knowledge or skills or experience, can contribute probative analytic insights.

Most of the individuals who serve on major newspaper editorial boards have international experience in business, academics or other areas in addition to journalism. Many have taught or teach in a particular academic area at one or more major universities. On a periodic basis and in the interest of editorial credibility, the newspapers publish the full backgrounds of their editorial boards, including all academic accomplishments, noted research, articles and awards. There is particular interest in the continued review of these credentials as a necessary basis to support the editorials, analysis of issues and political endorsements.

Collectively, a credible editorial board is able to take the very best from its editors and substantially advance insights through editorial opinion. These individuals are able to draw upon their business experiences, advanced academic credentials, their journalistic experiences or practical accomplishment to critically endorse candidates or analyze complex issues. Without such credentials, readers must ask why an editorial statement should seriously considered.

The actual fact is, as the number of newspapers has declined, there has been an equal or even greater decline in the level of editorial merit that may or even should be attributed to surviving papers.

As the number of newspapers have declined, the merit of their editorial endorsements appears to have suffered most even as the papers rely on the pretense that such endorsements have serious merit. Such pretense, without critical review, is a form of self serving deception, a level of deception that appears to increase exponentially with declining newspaper circulations. The smaller the newspaper, the lesser accomplished its editorial staff or board and less credible any analysis or endorsement made. Moreover, if the history of past endorsements falls into a particularly noted or establish pattern, readers must question whether the writing is an endorsement or free political advertising in the pretense of opinion.

In the evolution of news writing and editorial analysis, newspaper readers must ask themselves whether the editorial staff of the paper and the editorial as written is anything more than a re-statement of political campaign statements. My review of recent endorsements made in many of the smaller papers throughout northwestern Ohio reveals little more than an anemic shuffling of campaign literature. Substantial questions about the support of past economic policies that provided tax incentives to export manufacturing jobs; undermine small business interests; trade investment of Ohio employee pension funds for personal bonuses; failures to disclose sources of funds or flat out lies made in campaign literature are not addressed. Is it possible that editorial boards simply believe that in an age of internet efficiency this information is not readily available? If so, the intentional or inadvertent absence or failure to address these questions is a critical flaw in the merit of editorial endorsements. I do not believe an endorsement should be a rubber stamp.

It is also well recognized that many regional or city newspapers have a particular political bias. Some have sought to step away from past political references. For example, in 1976 “The Republican Courier” of Findlay, Ohio sought to become “The Courier” in a showing of non-partisan independence. The showing is in all practical purposes a fraud when the paper has not found a way to balance the evaluation of political issues or candidates. Perhaps its editorial board is congenitally unable to do anything else – but then, a sub-literate rubber stamp should not be called an endorsement. Editorial integrity should demand more but then editorial integrity does not appear the purpose of such endorsements in the first place.

Slaying the Jabberwock

In Democracy in America (Bk. II, Ch. 16: 1840), Alexis de Tocqueville addresses "How American Democracy has Modified the English Language" by allowing the play of words with multiple meanings to become common conduits of ambiguity. The insight is that American politicos play on the commonality of literary ignorance by using abstract verbalizations in substitution for words with real meaning. The consequence, according to de Tocqueville, is the creation of a verbal mythology in political language or speech that while appealing to the rank and file citizen is substantively meaningless.

Most pertinent is the now familiar formula followed by The Courier "Letter to the Editor" contributors who trace the flow of concepts from gullets, liberal legislators, arrogance, burgeoning government, spending programs, unfulfilled promises, ignoring the mandates of the Constitution and "the people." The collective combination seeks a self- fulfilling fantasy of awakened truth while having the substantive equivalence to that found in Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky."

Perhaps it is time to unseath our vorpal blades and once again slay the Jabberwock. In the engagement, it must be recognized that literal substance entails specific reference not vague rhetorical conclusions. The purpose is to invite meaningful discussion based on the citation of actual data, factual references that can be verified and exchanged so that each side of the discussion has a vested interest in reaching valid conclusions. Agree or not, we should be able to find common facts, common information and then determine how we are to find results.

If credible reference is made to electoral analysis, then meaningful discussion requires specific engagement of probative statistical data. Where writers may be deficient in comparative statistical analysis as apparent from recent submissions, there are numerous sources that can provide substantive explanations. Summary conclusions of key political events may only be seen as a disservice to credible discussion.

The United States Constitution serves as the instrument through which the institutions of our government are founded and our individual rights established and sustained. Reference made to particular powers or provisions bypassed or ignored within a constitutional context but without specification of the particular powers or provisions bypassed or ignored is meaningless punditry. References combined with the potential of unidentified ominous possibilities leaves much to the fanatical whims of undiscerning readers.

The United States Constitution contains specific articles, sections and even noted clauses. Meaningful discussion of powers or provisions in the Constitution requires citation. In this way, readers may note the concerns referred with trepidation equal to the insights of the writer; otherwise, we are simply left underwhelmed in the throes of exuberant verbosity.

I suggest that we can actually find and cite cases decided by the United States Supreme Court or published decisions of inferior courts. The fact that these are published means that we can read them. If there is to be a citation to a case, then we can refer to the case, read it and even find enlightening commentary. What we cannot do is to just cite the holding of a case without being forced to defend the holding. It is all to easy to suggest that cases have historic meaning but when subjected to critical review, the actual holding must be distinguished. I can at least say that when I attended law school at The Franklin Thomas Backus School of Law at Case Western Reserve University, we did study the United States Constitution, we used the Constitution and cases as precedent for an understanding of the Constitution and case law Constitutional history.

When reference is made to how Constitutional Law is taught, my suggestion is to dive into the two volumes of American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe. It may take a few cups of tea to absorb - I prefer that exacting blend of Darjeeling, India and Ceylon from Davison Newman & Co. deposited in Boston Harbour on December 16, 1773 or again on March 7, 1774.

My point here is to invite a step beyond the continued Dog-whistle profundity all too often found in this part of The Courier and similar publications in this area.