Talk:News media endorsements in the 2020 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Largest reported circulation?[edit]

The sourcing for the "largest reported circulation" is not particularly good. While the underlying source is the Alliance for Audited Media (which would be a good source, if we had access to their full data), it's being cited to data from 2014 -- before the last presidential election, including a citation to a blog titled "Terrance This Is Stupid Stuff." If we can't find reliable sources for newspaper circulation that are reasonably current anymore, we should omit this column. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on endorsement histories[edit]

I don't recommend including in the "notes" column background about a newspaper's historic endorsement record, such as "The [Los Angeles] Times endorsed Republican candidates until 1972, then discontinued endorsements until backing Obama in 2008 and 2012" or "This was only the third time the traditionally Republican-leaning [Chicago] Tribune endorsed a Democrat for president (after their 2008 and 2012 endorsements for Illinois native Barack Obama). Their 2016 endorsement of Johnson was their first ever for a Libertarian presidential candidate." The implication of these notes seems to be that it's a major departure for the LA Times or the Chicago Tribune to endorse Biden, but not only is that undue emphasis which appears to be editorializing, but it's debatable whether it's a departure for them at all given that they both did endorse Barack Obama twice, representing two of the last three presidential elections. (The Scientific American endorsement is a somewhat different story, given that the magazine never endorsed any presidential candidate before.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community Advocate[edit]

The endorsement is not from the editorial board but rather from a letter to the editor. Also, as the paper does not have its own WP entry, I do not think it warrants inclusion. Will delete for now Not Sure (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure, if you look at the letter, it is by “Community Advocate Staff” to the editor. Also, the list for news media endorsements covers all news media endorsements, not just those who have a Wikipedia page. I will add this back later tonight. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lima Bean Farmer, This may have been where the confusion was. The webpage was posted online by a "Community Advocate Staff." However, the page is a personal letter "to the editor" by one John J. Finn of Shrewsbury explaining why he is supporting Biden. That means it is not an editorial endorsement by the newspaper but only one opinion published in the paper and should not be listed under the rubric "endorsements." Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NEJM's 'Not Trump'[edit]

Let's not whack around the bush here. 'Not Donald Trump' isn't really an endorsement. It should be changed to: "Defacto Joe Biden" in the affirmative, rather than trying to be OVERLY political correct. There is only one other viable candidate on Oct 11, that's Joe Biden. We can insert a note saying Joe Biden wasn't EXPLICITLY mentioned, but defacto 'Not Trump' is Biden... What y'all think?Rwat128 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the existence of List of Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign endorsements and List of Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign endorsements means "Not Trump" does not necessarily equal Biden even if Biden's the "most likely" non-Trump choice.--Tibby57721 (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never even heard of those people until I saw my ballot yesterday.64.18.152.49 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, we can’t assume that they are supporting Joe Biden. If they decide to endorse Biden, we can add it. It’s pretty much that simple. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the NEJM had wanted to endorse Joe Biden, they would have put his name in the editorial. They didn't. I note that we reported thirty endorsements for "Not Donald Trump" and one for "Not Hillary Clinton" in Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election, so the idea of a "Not [Candidate]" endorsement is not new to us. Anyway, I'm a little bit skeptical that the NEJM editorial constituted an endorsement at all (it didn't use any form of the word "endorse"), albeit not skeptical enough to try to remove it from the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, if you want to get REALLY technically never explicitly mentioned "Trump" by name either, nor did it even use "Not Endorse Trump" or similar term. So I propose "Indeterminate" for NEJM since it does not explicitly say they are against Trump by name.Rwat128 (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason Magazine[edit]

The magazine's editorial board did not come to the conclusion that there was no candidate they could endorse in this election. In fact, as the article makes clear, Reason always refrains from endorsements because they "are published by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and therefore don't endorse particular candidates." Instead, the magazine chooses to publish individual staffers' opinions on how they will vote; however, as the article goes on to explain, "nothing in what follows should be construed as an official endorsement of any candidate or cause." That is why the entry on endorsements needs to be removed. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure, if a news source announces that they are not making an endorsement or endorsements, we list it as “no endorsement”. This is how news media endorsements are listed for endorsements presidential elections. If you have any questions, let me know Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lima Bean Farmer, no - that would be disingenuous. "No endorsement" by an editorial board means they have evaluated all candidates and come to the conclusion that not a single one of them merits an endorsement. It is different in this case, because the magazine cannot endorse candidates. Reason magazine should therefore not be listed, as they will never endorse a candidate. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure, they never say that they can not endorse a candidate. They say they won’t endorse a candidate partly because they’re a nonprofit and also that no candidate embodies their full view or something like that. When a magazine or newspaper or anything of that nature says specifically that they are not endorsing in the presidential race, regardless of reason (them not liking the candidate, sticking with tradition, being told they’re not able to, etc.) we list it as “no endorsement. I will wait for your response but please stop deleting this magazine as it contributes to potential edit warring. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lima Bean Farmer, It might be useful to get another perspective about this issue in here. "No endorsement" under the category of "news media endorsements" is a value judgment about the merits of a candidate. If a news outlet decides it cannot endorse a candidate based on its editorial judgment then that is something qualitatively different from the fact that it simply does not participate in political endorsements (for whatever reason). In that case it may be useful to define a new category along the lines of "categorically never endorses." Otherwise, you can start listing all the other magazines here that do not endorse political candidates like TV Guide, Home and Country, Better Homes and Gardens, etc., but that would dilute the specific value of the information on this page. There is a significant difference between an editorial board deciding that no political candidate deserves their endorsement and a magazine that is prohibited from or never partakes in making such decisions. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure, if you would like, you can always request a third opinion. While I agree with your point that every magazine that doesn’t make endorsements shouldn’t be added, this one specifically says they will not endorse in this race. Look at Surfer magazine for example. You wouldn’t say that we shouldn’t include them because they don’t endorse candidates. Since they specifically weighed in on whether or not they will make an endorsement in the election, I think it should be counted. As far as I’m aware, the magazines you mentioned above have not explicitly stated any opinion on this upcoming election or made any comments about endorsements. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we exclude Surfer when they did endorse a candidate this year? [1] But adding "no endorsement" for Reason when they never endorsed candidates before and aren't doing so this year doesn't add anything of interest or value to Wikipedia readers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Metropolitan90. Here is how I think the relevance of "no endorsement" should be considered: 1. News media that do not generally publish editorial endorsements (for whatever reason) should not be listed (examples: TV Guide, Home and Garden, Reason magazine). 2. News media that do not generally publish editorial endorsements but decide to break with this tradition should be listed (examples: Surfer Magazine, New England Journal of Medicine). 3. News media that publish "no endorsement" have made an editorial decision that not a single political candidate merits their support. This is relevant and should therefore be listed under the rubric "no endorsement" (examples: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2016 after they endorsed Obama in 2012, Austin American-Statesman did not endorse candidates in 2012 and 2016 but did so in other election years). Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specific notes[edit]

Yes, I think the Post endorsed Trump in 2016, but I can't find a reference. Same with the Vallejo Times-Herald. I will remove "None" (as this would be misleading) and leave the column blank until someone can verify. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note [e] appears false[edit]

The note, in reference to the New Hampshire Union Leader's 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden, says "This was the first time this publication endorsed a non-Republican presidential candidate in a general election in 100 years." But according to the table, the newspaper endorsed Gary Johnson (a Libertarian since 2011) in 2016. Perhaps the note should read, "... first time this publication endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate in the general..."? Yeltommo (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct -- in 2016 they broke their endorsement record for Republican candidates. The reference is here. I will fix it. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal Needs to be added[edit]

WSJ endorses Biden in 2020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-a-footnote-to-a-biden-endorsement-11603749417 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.161.94 (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from outside the WSJ paywall, but the link is actually a quote from a different newspaper, not a WSJ endorsement. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's a quote from the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsement: "From “Our choice is Joe Biden*,” an editorial in the New Hampshire Union Leader, Oct. 25 ...." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to their own website, the Wall Street Journal hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928 (Herbert Hoover), but they "do try to sum up the risks and promise of the candidates every four years." Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papers to be added to the list[edit]

Portland Mercury for Biden (weekly) --Enos733 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this[2] looks like the St. Joseph News-Press going for Trump again. Maybe I'll add it. (I hoped to find third party endorsements, but they're rare this year.)--Tibby57721 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-editorials added[edit]

I removed a mention of a National Review op-ed -- the mention falsely implied that it was an NR editorial when it actually was the opinion of an individual contributor. Earlier (see above), editoris have believed that a WSJ quotation of another newspaper was the WSJ's editorial board's own endorsement. We need to be careful about this and week out other mistaken mentions that might also have been added. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gleaner[edit]

The Gleaner (a Jamaican newspaper) has an editorial that's clearly against Trump, but I'm unsure if it should be mentioned as any sort of endorsement or non-endorsement. Compare to their 2016 editorial that is listed in Newspaper endorsements in the 2016 United States presidential election#Endorsements by foreign periodicals. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minh Nguyễn, this most definitely will be added. They clearly state they hope Trump loses. Thank you for sharing 2601:8A:4102:B3A0:D501:2B99:B82C:9787 (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Korea Times[edit]

I question whether it is meaningful to include an "endorsement" from The Korea Times which was published three days after the election. That's praise for the winning candidate, but it's not the kind of endorsement this candidate is supposed to be about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90, Biden was not yet deemed the winning candidate. They were just stating their preference which is what an endorsement is, even if they did not do it before the election. Definitely should be added. Just Piping In (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:News_media_endorsements_in_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1204275658"