Editorial Page Editor: The why and how of our endorsements

  • Article by: SCOTT GILLESPIE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 20, 2012 - 6:38 PM

They're always controversial, but you can be confident that they've been carefully considered. And they're never the last word.

  • 11
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
choochoo12Oct. 20, 12 8:12 PM

No credible news organization would endorse a political candidate. You are supposed to REPORT the news, not sway public opinion to your liking!

jjsbrwOct. 20, 1210:40 PM

choochoo12Oct. 20, 12 8:12 PM No credible news organization would endorse a political candidate. You are supposed to REPORT the news, not sway public opinion to your liking! ,----------------------- Do you feel the same way about Fox News? Wouldn't they be by far the worst offenders by the standard you set?

elmore1Oct. 21, 12 7:21 AM

We get a liberal ideology on a daily basis. Who do you suppose will be endorsed?

owatonnabillOct. 21, 12 8:05 AM

"The Star Tribune takes a different approach -- not because we take lightly the prospect of raising the ire of our readers or advertisers, but because we believe there's civic value in hosting an informed debate on issues that matter most to Minnesotans." ........................ Were it not for the fact that most "news" the Strib prints seems to have a spin that reflects the opinion of the editorial board (the most recent "news" stories on the congressional investigation into the Benghazi murders, for example) owatonnabill might believe the above statement. However for decades is appears as if the Strib's endorsements are really only a priori reasoning. Pick the candidate, then cherry-pick the "facts" that support their conclusion. Sorry, Mr. Gillespie. Your dog just doesn't hunt.

RossbergOct. 21, 1212:25 PM

Having been a subscriber for over 40 years I can act as a reference as to the "balance" shown in the endorsements by the StarTribune. It's all but non-existent. You'd think over that length of time there would be at least a few good non-DFL candidates running for office who merited something other than a disdainful dismissal of their candidacy. But who was the last Republican presidential candidate that was endorsed by you? Eisenhower, perhaps? Unless a DFL candidate was totally unqualified virtually every congressional and senatorial endorsement has been given to a DFLer, at least as long as I can remember. The same is true of gubernatorial candidates with only one or two exceptions for those who were so blatantly liberal in their views that they were quasi-DFLers. While there's nothing wrong in endorsing your preferred choice, why not at least be honest about the real criteria that must be met in order to get your endorsement? Yours is a liberal-leaning newspaper, as are most of the remaining major city newspapers in the country. That truth is nothing to be embarrassed about and certainly a disservice to hide. You can concoct any kind of "objective" test you want but in the end it always comes down to a subjective decision, usually in favor of someone who, if they fail the objective tests, you describe with the smarmy cliche of being "thoughtful", a totally meaningless and unprovable attribute. Why not just admit what everyone has known for decades - that candidates espousing the liberal viewpoint will be far more likely to win endorsement than those who don't?

DannysteelOct. 21, 12 5:26 PM

Nobody cares, Strib. Only the new York Times is more of a joke when it comes to partisan cheerleading

MZBKAOct. 23, 12 3:00 PM

I'm glad the Star Tribune will again endorse candidates this year. I always enjoy reading them.

dewarfOct. 23, 12 7:08 PM

Let's see, the Strib "gives points to candidates who show an in-depth knowledge on a range of issues". Excuse me, didn't the Strib endorse Obama in 2008? The Amateur had almost NO KNOWLEDGE of anything foreign or domestic during the 2008 campaign and predictably, the NY Times, Washington Post, Strib and LA Times endorsed him anyway. Even Hillary Clinton warned us: "if the phone rings in the White House at 3AM, who do you want to answer it"? Of course, she was right. Four years of disaster has followed and already the LA Times has re-endorsed Obama because he's exhibited strong leadership. Duh??? In which areas? I believe if the Strib editorials REQUIRED a signature we'd get more thoughtful and accurate analysis. By hiding behind "editorial board" you avoid looking personally stupid when supporting a community organizer for the first executive position of his life and then watching him bumble and stumble while the country and the free world suffers through his 4-year learning term. If you think the Middle East is in better shape today than before Obama's apology tour -- then vote for him. How about Russia? China? North Korea? If you think the American Healthcare delivery system in in better shape today than before Obamacare -- then vote for him. If you think illegal immigration is in better shape than before Obama pledged to get it handled in his first year in office -- then vote for him. If you think only $6 Trillion of additional federal deficits in four years is acceptable (that's $20,000 for every man, woman and child in the USA (not counting interest payments)), and you accept his proposal to 'only' add another $4 Trillion over the next 10 years -- then vote for this guy. He's never balanced a budget IN HIS LIFE! Never managed ANYTHING successfully! Amateur may be too nice a word to describe Barack Obama's capabilities. Impostor seems a lot more accurate (his Nobel prize a perfect example). That being said, watch the Strib "board" line up behind him again because he now deserves a chance to do things right, even if he hasn't demonstrated any ability during the past four years. The logic of the liberal MSM is almost comical.

pinky1933Oct. 26, 1210:25 PM

yet, owatonnabill, you come back again, and again, and again... and so does this paper, and remarkably well. for all those bitter about this paper offering political endorsements, here's an idea: START YOUR OWN! but you won't because it will never really succeed. kinda like the Washington Times vs the Post. FOX? it's video..."chasing shiny things."

owatonnabillOct. 27, 12 7:14 PM

"yet, owatonnabill, you come back again, and again, and again... and so does this paper, and remarkably well. for all those bitter about this paper offering political endorsements, here's an idea: START YOUR OWN! " ...................... Lol. You don't get it, pinky me lad. Owatonnabill and a few others are the token conservatives around here. Gotta do something to keep up the pretense of impartiality, don'tchaknow. The Strib is what it is, and what it is is a reflection of the political views of the majority of their readership. Gotta sell those papers and get those hits to pay the bills, yanno, and they play to their audience. The fact that their audience, by and large, is diehard Liberal is not too hard to figure out. Hence the grist thrown into the mill reflects that particular political philosophy. The only problem, as with the majority of the large-market papers in this country, is that readership is shrinking, which must mean that the group with views other than those cherished by the strib is growing. Look for the Strib and other papers, in the interests of survival, to start taking a more impartial stand on the issues. Get used to seeing more opinions like those of owatonnabill. it is inevitable. The Strib can't make it just preaching to the choir.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters