A few days ago, on the orders of its publisher Stacey Cowles, the Spokesman-Review of Spokane published an unsigned editorial inexplicably urging its readers to back Donald Trump for reelection.
“Donald Trump is a bully and a bigot. He is symptomatic of a widening partisan divide in the country. We recommend voting for him anyway because the policies that Joe Biden and his progressive supporters would impose on the nation would be worse,” the Cowles-ordered Trump endorsement began.
That’s right: Stacey Cowles would rather keep sliding right on down the hill towards fascist oligarchy than elect a President who wants to protect people’s healthcare, right to breathe clean air, ability to go to college, take care of family members in their old age, and restore America’s standing in the world.
Cowles’ insistence on endorsing Trump has predictably inflicted tremendous damage on the credibility and reputation of the paper his family owns.
So much so, in fact, that the paper’s editor Rob Curley has announced that he has convinced Cowles to end the practice of running unsigned editorials and do away with endorsements of candidates for elected office.
With those words simply attributed to The Spokesman-Review, it became clear things should be different from here on out. There are some newspaper traditions we shouldn’t just be OK dumping, we should openly embrace throwing them out as outdated relics.
The irony is that I had pitched this idea to our publisher a few years ago on a roadtrip to a newspaper conference.
The idea was remarkably simple: If we give our readers the facts, we don’t have to tell them what to think. They can come to their own conclusions. There are some things that we should be OK telling our readers, because we’ve given them the facts.
Instead, we’d focus on the things that only we can give you, because we live here. We’d also make the editorial pages much more about our community’s thoughts – a mirror that reflected itself – meaning more letters and columns from people who live here.
And when we did write about our opinions, we would always say whose opinion that is. The point was that our opinions really should be from our community and we should continue to throw out traditions like unsigned editorials. When you get rid of the things that no longer matter, you can zero in on the things that are essential.
Getting better isn’t just about what you do, but about what you don’t do. So we are no longer running unsigned editorials and we are dropping endorsements.
Emphasis is mine.
This announcement is proof that good can come out of bad.
Stacy Cowles’ decision to publish an endorsement of Donald Trump showed frighteningly poor judgment and a lack of empathy.
But it has prompted an important policy change at the Spokesman-Review: No more unsigned editorials. And no more endorsements, either.
Our team heartily welcomes these developments, and we urge The Seattle Times and other newspapers in Washington State to follow suit.
When you’re in the habit of almost universally recommending that incumbents be reelected due to their experience (as most of Washington State’s editorial boards are) you’re not providing much of a service… not even to people who go by the mantra of “I vote for the person, not the party.”
A far more sensible practice is to create editorial space for readers to talk about who they are supporting for public office (and why) through letters to the editor. The Columbian, out of Vancouver, currently does a really good job of this.
The Spokesman-Review’s new policies mirror our long held practices here at NPI. All of the long form pieces we publish here on the Cascadia Advocate are signed (like this post) and we do not endorse candidates for public office.
We do take positions on ballot measures because we are a research and advocacy organization that works to turn ideas our region and country needs into laws.
But we do not endorse candidates or engage in electioneering for or against candidates. Rather, NPI uses its publications to look at contests for public office through a research and advocacy focused journalism lens.
Our region’s remaining newspapers have a crucial role to play in promoting civic health and keeping people well informed. We want them to be as prosperous and successful as possible. We believe that dumping unsigned editorials and candidate endorsements in favor of creating a space where readers can express well-worded opinions that abide by high standards for civic discourse would encourage more people to subscribe and support the newsrooms that our newspapers operate.
Congratulations to the Spokesman-Review for getting the party started. Here’s hoping more of our newspapers jump on the bandwagon.
The damage has been done already by the publishing of the endorsement of Trump even while acknowledging Trump’s major moral failings. Where is the apology from the paper? The retraction? The recognition of their error? A paper can and should endorse candidates providing one measure of Information upon which a reader can reflect. But to eliminate this practice and think that this act makes up for the Trump support is ludicrous. Even the SEATTLE TIMES as staid as it is would never make such an absurd argument and that’s saying a lot.
I absolutely agree with this comment. Severe damage to the paper’s credibility has been done, and pleas to continue supporting it by those who work there are not enough to make me reinstate my subscription. It must have caused a number of cancelations, because I’m getting bombarded by employees and the managing editor to reconsider. But until there is a full retraction of the endorsement and a statement by Cowles himself that he was wrong, I can’t consider subscribing again. I would prefer to see Cowles completely removed from all operations of the paper. Better yet, let the employees take ownership and step aside all together. He is a disgrace to Spokane, caring on the legacy of his forbears.
First of all; for Mr. Cowles to preface the papers political endorsement of the black cloud that is Donald Trump with some of his more glaring moral, ethical, egotistical and so many other questionable shortcomings and then support him for the office anyway, is irresponsible in the extreme. As long as I have read this paper and while I have appreciated many of its stronger parts, I have been ever mystified by the Cowles’ periodic insistence on this offensive activity by attempting to substitute their opinion for all of ours. Why not report the news as it is and let us all decide what we need to do? If you are trying to maintain this mostly good paper, this does not seem the way. My preference and suggestion is to hand the paper’s reins back to Rob Curley where they belong, and who has certainly earned our respect. Additionally, I have a great appreciation for Shawn Vestal and his courageous writing on difficult subjects. His mandate is a difficult one, but he does it well.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here, NPI — I firmly believe endorsements by newspapers provide an important service. Sometimes, like in the case of the Seattle Times, that service is purely negative, as in I read it just to see who NOT to vote for or against! I do agree that unsigned editorials should be abandoned; forty years ago, when I was a professional newspaper writer and editor in Texas, getting the (unsigned) tablets handed down from on high with the “run this verbatim” edict was always a moment of dread and shame. If you’re going to plaster your wing-nut opinion all over the paper, at least have the courage to sign it.
Wow!
When I read the unattributed op-ed in the Spokesman endorsing Donald Trump in spite of a long list of reasons why any rational, patriotic American should NOT endorse him… I was floored. My initial reaction was, the Spokesman Review just admitted publicly that it is a right-wing rag that totally fails to reflect the hearts and minds of all Spokane citizens. I decided right then I would NEVER purchase another subscription to this newspaper. The open apology from Rob Curley is encouraging, but too little, too late because the damage has been done.
While I do not agree with this endorsement there are many who did or do. One person’s opinion or endorsement will not alter my viewpoint. What angers me, is that only those opposed have been quoted here and no supporters. Is Spokane so anti-Trump that no one in the Inland Empire will vote for him? Yes, editorials should be signed and assigned, but don’t stop making them just for the benefit of some individuals who disagree.
Everything we publish here on the Cascadia Advocate is subjective and opinionated, George, so you won’t always see “both sides” quoted. There’s plenty of right wing media out there carrying that perspective. This publication is the voice of the Northwest Progressive Institute’s staff, board, and contributors, and you can expect that the analysis and commentary you’ll find here will always be rooted in progressive values.
Did Cathy McMorris Rogers write that editorial?
I appreciate reading endorsements when there is a rationale with them, but when you tell all the reasons not to vote for Trump and then endorse him for only one reason, that’s just stupid.
Good grief! I guess free speech is only tolerated from those who endorse liberal candidates because other viewpoints are only from “deplorables and chumps.” What a sad state of affairs when liberals can intimidate and silence an opinion from the other side. This is not the America that intelligent individuals should want.
Nothing about Donald Trump or the fanatical cult that enables him resembles the America that intelligent individuals should want, Lee.
My first inclination after reading SR’s Trump endorsement was to cancel my subscription. I gave myself a week to think it over, though, to see if it was just a knee-jerk reaction. After all, I’ve supported SR for 25 years now. After reading the following Sunday’s opinion page, though, I had enough. I absolutely cannot support Stacey Cowle’s position and will not put money in his pocket, regardless of what the rest of his staff have to say. I canceled my subscription and made sure they understood exactly why.