Denver Post backs Obama -Rocky Mountain News supports conversation, not one candidate

In today’s paper, the Denver Post officially endorsed Barack Obama for President. Although it was not a unanimously choice by their editorial board.
Dan Haley, the editorial page editor for the Post, had a real good column explaining how they made the decision and deliberated about it over the last few weeks.

He explained that it wasn’t a Republican vs Democrat issue, but “The Post is an independent newspaper that doesn’t care what’s good for Republicans or what’s good for Democrats. We owe nothing to either party.”

He went on to explain that, “Endorsements are meant to stoke a public dialogue”.

According to Haley, he is not so sure of Obama will be able to “change” the country and also feels that the politics are further left than his own beliefs.

Just for the record, the Denver Post has now supported seven Democrats and seven Republicans.

But the Rocky Mountain News took a different approach.  In a column in Saturday’s paper, publisher John Temple announced that the Rocky would not be endorsing anyone.

Instead the Rocky would be providing information on both candidates and have their readers foster their own opinions.

Temple rationalizes this by looking back at the state of newspapers. At one time, the newspaper was the only or the main way for the public to get their news.  But now, there are many ways for the public to get information to help them make a decision.

But we live in a different world today, a world where citizens have a wealth of information available to them. If anything, what they need is a trusted source to help them evaluate that information and come to their own conclusions.

So we have two newspapers, two different paths trying to foster thought and debate over the issues so people can determine to vote for who they think is best.

My opinion? I think the Rocky Mountain News is taking the best approach.  Because of the amount of information on the internet, we don’t need a newspaper’s editorial board to provide an opinion to generate thought.

What people are looking for is an unbiased source of information that we can then make up our mind on who we think is best to represent us or if we support or don’t support an issue.

I think Temple summarizes it best, “In the end we’ll leave it to you to come to your own conclusion, trusting that’s what you want and believing this newspaper’s editorial page can be most valuable to you if it helps you reach an informed decision, with an emphasis on informed. After all, ultimately that’s our job. It’s not to pick presidents, senators or representatives.”

Do you have any thoughts?

Media not covering the Presidential Election as much as they used to

The cost of covering the 2008 Presidential Election has grown to a point that newspapers aren’t covering it with their own reporters as much as they used to.
In an article that ran in the New York Times, The Buzz on the Bus: Pinched, Press Step Off, they discuss how major newspapers aren’t covering the presidential campaigns.

For most of the others, the price of admission — more than $2,000 for just one person to travel on Mr. Obama’s charter flights that day — was too steep, in an era in which newspapers in particular are slashing costs and paring staff, and with no end in sight to a primary campaign that began more than a year ago.

It is just getting too expensive for them to cover the events and who does that hurt? The voters. We are not getting the information we need but are getting bombarded with information that does not help us make an educated decision on who we are going to vote for.

Bloggers help, but for the most part they drive a lot of misinformation. Who should we believe?

Only a few newspapers are covering it full time. Most are relying on wire services for their coverage.

It is a sign of the times that things are changing in the media industry, but I wish something would come along that would provide the services that these news organizations used to provide.