Much has been made of the decisions by two major newspapers not to endorse a presidential candidate in the recently concluded election. People who pay attention to politics know the papers were the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. But I’m willing to bet that even people who pay attention to things like that don’t know that another major print pub, The Wall Street Journal, hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928.

In my opinion, to steal the title of a William Shakespeare comedy, it’s Much Ado About Nothing.

At one time, maybe in Mr. Shakespeare’s days, the few people who were permitted to have a say might have been swayed by the pundits of the time, the supporters or foes of kings. But, I assume, like today, not too many minds were changed, because most “voted” the same way as their parents and grandparents did, as many voters do today, even though the Democratic and Republican parties have switched positions on many issues.

Today, I believe that fewer voters are influenced by editorial endorsements than ever before. Here’s why I believe that:

When your parents and grandparents were much younger, the political season didn’t commence until after Labor Day; today an election has no start or finish days. The day after an election, the next one begins. And you can blame cable TV for that. Because cable TV covers politics 24/7, 365 days a year, viewers hear discussions about political issues every second of every minute of every hour, if they don’t have a life.

Add to that, print pundits, known as columnists, do their political dissecting throughout the year. 

At one time, before TV, interested voters would get their political news mostly from newspapers or a few radio programs. After World War 2, when TV sets became available, many people tuned in the network’s Sunday shows to get political news. Not so today. The cable political shows are now dominant.

The loss of many great newspapers and the struggles of the few remaining major print journals now play second fiddle to opinions expressed on the cable TV political shows, even though print articles are much more factually detailed than the few minutes of the “she said, he said” discussions on the box and on social media, much of which should be labeled propaganda. The Sunday network political shows are still around but have lost their importance because of the 24/7 cable political shows. 

Today, I believe that what might drive a person to vote a certain way are niche issues, like, immigration, an individual’s personal economy and abortion.

Because of the 24/7 cable news political programming, I believe an editorial position by a newspaper is soon drowned out by the talking pundits on the cable political shows. 

I believe that an editorial endorsement will not change a person’s vote. Like opinions on Fox News and MSNBC, it only is important to people who have already made their decisions and agree with the editorial.

In the days before TV, an editorial might sway some voters. Because of the year-round converge of political news today, the day after an editorial is printed, it can be used to wrap fish in, and the day after that, it’s most likely forgotten. But the cable pundits live on.

For high intensity voters, I believe it is keeping up with the news 365 days a year that influences their votes; for niche voters, it could be one issue that influences their votes. And for low intensity voters, it’s the continually repeated one-sided nonsense, most of which should be labeled propaganda, that they hear from the cable pundits of the left and right that influences them.

That’s why I believe that the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times declining to endorse a candidate is Much Ado About Nothing, because by the time an editorial endorsement is printed, the great majority of voters have already made their decisions, based on the gibberish that is reported on cable TV.

I believe that any person who is influenced by an editorial is a low intensity voter, because if they had followed the political news for several months prior to the editorial, their minds would already have been made up before the ink on the article dried. 

I hate to think that a know-nothing voter, who casts a ballot because of the opinions of TV and print pundits, or because of the machinations of people like me during my political days, who has little knowledge of the issues, can cancel out the vote of a person who is knowledgeable of the issues. But that’s our political system. 

Like the Electoral College that permits candidates with less popular votes to win, like having a state have the same number of senators as one with millions of more people, and having appointees to the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments, that’s our outdated political system. And until a better system of government is invented, we’re stuck with it.

But that doesn’t mean it’s not possible to improve the government as it exists: Disregard what fanatics from the left and right say. Pay attention to the political news for many months before voting. Do not get your political news solely from cable TV; read a respected print publication. Disregard what the pundits say, (the exception being what I write). And unless you’re a fanatic who votes Democratic or Republican regardless of issues, you’re certain to have a government more to your liking than the one that will take office on Jan. 20, 2025, I hope.  

Shortly after the Washington Post announced that it would not endorse a candidate, 250,000 subscribers cancelled subscriptions, which to my thinking is like a person who cuts off the fingers on their hand because its nails need to be continually cut. The cancellation by so many readers exacerbates the money problem that the WaPo has had for years and threatens the survival of one of the few remaining print pubs that still invests in investigative journalism. Those people who read the Post (and the L.A. Times) already know the political stances of the papers by reading its editorials throughout the year. That’s why, in my opinion, people who canceled their subscriptions remind me of the CEO’s of the  many great American companies of the past that have disappeared, or are in deep trouble, because they opted for immediate profits, instead of taking a long term view.

Important Lesson For People In Our Business

If you are the supervisor of a program, and are convinced that your approach is correct, do not be swayed by other’s opinions, because it’s your neck that will on the line if the program fails. That doesn’t mean that if other staffers have good ideas, you shouldn’t use them. But remember, the responsibility is yours and if a program fails because you were swayed by other’s opinions, you will still be blamed.