So the rumor mill is humming, and how, over whispered reports that the Cleveland Plain Dealer will endorse George W. Bush for re-election tomorrow despite their seven-member editorial board voting 5-2 to endorse Kerry. Reportedly, the paper's publisher, Republican Alex Machaskee, overruled their vote for the first time in his history at the paper.
This is definitely one of those stories that responsible journalists would wait to see if indeed the paper endorses the President, and then call the editorial board to confirm the vote was overruled, but what's the fun in that?
One commenter on Kos wrote:
I immediately called the PD and talked with someone in the editorial room and voiced my displeasure at the prospect of a PD endorsement for Bush. I also said that if it is true that the editorial board had in fact voted to endorse Kerry but were over-ruled by the publisher, this would push me and others to cancel our subscriptions. Not that my feelings are going to sway them, but I was so angry I had to do something. Interestingly, she seemed to be genuinely interested in what I had to say. She told me the following: she said that they have not yet decided who to endorse; that there will not be an endorsement tomorrow. I asked if they would endorse Bush in the near future and she said they have not decided yet. She asked where I heard this rumor because she had heard it as well. I told her that it's out there, all over the country and many people are watching the PD to see who they will endorse. She actually seemed surprised by this. I told her a lot of people will be very very pissed if they endorsed Bush, especially if it was forced by the publisher.
But according to Rittenhouse Review:
The editorial staff is talking about a walk-out in protest of Machaskee's intervention.
Needless to say, the Publisher can do as he wishes, but what would prompt someone to think there would be no repercussions from such a move boggles the mind. It also suggests this probably isn't true, but we'll see tomorrow.
Wow. I haven't heard a story that so neatly encompasses *both* the "librul media" meme *and* the VRWC meme in one sweet little package. I can't wait to see the Rorschach results of this one...
Posted by: Anarch | October 23, 2004 at 08:23 PM
I suspect Edward, a former Buckeye like me, would probably agree with me that the PD is the worst city newspaper in Ohio, and one of the worst major metropolitan papers in the United States. Under Machaskee (or as he was dubbed by the Cleveland Free Times, "The Snake"), the paper has been little more than an organ for drumming up support for all the tax-subsidized goodies that the Cleveland business community have helped themselves to in the name of "revitalization." Now, a decade or so down the road, and after the years of DLC-style Mayor Mike White, Cleveland is now the poorest big city in America, with a poverty rate of 31.3 percent.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that, if true, this story will not surprise me in the least.
Posted by: Phil | October 23, 2004 at 09:41 PM
It's interesting, I'll agree: on the one hand, it's Machaskee's paper, not the editors'; on the other, the editors, not Machaskee, are the ones who give the paper whatever value it may have (I don't read it) - and are the ones more likely to have an opinion that's actually of interest to the readers.
I'd say that if Machaskee really, really wants a pro-Bush endorsement (and presuming that the board really voted 5-2 to not do so), he would be well-advised to either write his own editorial in addition to the one made by his editorial board, or else take his current stance to its logical conclusion and fire his editorial board for not producing a paper that's in accordance with his wishes. He'd be even better advised to go with the former option.
Posted by: Moe Lane | October 23, 2004 at 09:56 PM
Not that they are always the unblemished Fount of Truth, but the discussion threads on DailyKos have a bit more background on the Cleveland Plain Dealer endorsement flap which might bear examining. It's not quite a simple case of "Republican Publisher Overrules Democrat Editors". It's complex to get into, but Balkan politics, the Kosovo War, and a gaffe by the Kerry campaign are involved - Help!
Posted by: Jay C. | October 24, 2004 at 12:05 AM
Well, their editorials are up, and there's no endorsement. (They did come out against Ohio's proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, though.)
Posted by: hilzoy | October 24, 2004 at 01:20 AM
The Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush, even though the news reporting and the Sunday Perspective editorial and opinion section is overwhelming slanted anti-Bush. Similarly, previous editorials "broke" news about the UN Oil-For-Food scandal and the Darfur crisis in Sudan, because the "objective news coverage" parts of the paper did not deign to report about these issues (at least until after the editorial).
Posted by: DaveC | October 24, 2004 at 12:59 PM