Andrew Ricci, Vice President, LEVICKNewspapers here in the United States are no stranger to telling their readers how to vote. In every electoral campaign, one of the big tasks as Election Day nears is the gaining, or regaining, of an editorial board’s endorsement. In my days of running communications in electoral politics, I’ve seen some newspapers haul the candidate into long meetings for interviews where the candidate had to defend their record. I’ve had to take first pen at filling out long questionnaires on seemingly every issue under the sun. And I’ve seen newspapers undertake the whole process on their own, conducting a deep dive into the candidate’s record and public statements before making a final determination of who they think is best for the country, state, district, or locality.When a newspaper comes out in support of your candidate, it’s an instant boost throughout the campaign organization. It adds a spring in the step of the field team and becomes part of their talking points as they talk to voters. The finance team finds it a boon to fundraising. And the communications team trumpets it far and wide as further evidence that their candidate is the one to back.It’s not uncommon for American newspapers to weigh in on every ballot line: President, Governor, federal legislature, state legislature, Attorney General and other statewide positions, ballot questions, and, where such positions exist, all the way down to dogcatcher. Sometimes the endorsements are predictable: a more conservatively-leaning newspaper, for example, might historically back more conservative-leaning candidates. And other times, a newspaper’s endorsement might make major national waves, as was the case when the Arizona Republic, which had never endorsed a Democrat for President since its inception in 1890, endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016.Major broadsheets in the UK, like The Guardian (backing Labour) and The Daily Telegraph (backing the Conservatives) offered similar, well-thought and reasoned endorsements in advance of the snap election last week. The Guardian even offered an inside look at how they decided who to back, which is a quality read for anyone interested in media issues.But not all endorsements have to be dry, straightforward affairs, and for a sterling example of this, we can turn to the tabloid press, which offered a more entertaining take on who should lead the country.Newspaper covers like these are not wholly unfamiliar to American audiences, who are bombarded with all-too-familiar white headlines over unflattering photos in grocery store checkout lines and newspaper kiosks. Headlines promise inside information about the salacious private lives of celebrities or the secret details about the latest political controversy, drawing readers in with the promise of fresh scandal.While American tabloids enjoy surprisingly wide circulation, with The New York Post reaching roughly 500,000 readers, The Sun and The Daily Mail in the U.K. are much more widely read, with both newspapers reaching daily circulation numbers of about 1.5 million citizens daily.Given their tremendous outreach and eye-catching front pages, British tabloids – with their bad puns and little boxes in the top right corner of the front covers – have the same potential to make a genuine electoral impact on the various positions held by the citizens of Great Britain as the mainstream publications.And, if you ask them, perhaps they have.Following the 1992 election in the United Kingdom, The Sun ran the following headline: In this chest-thumping display of “told-you-so”, The Sun cemented themselves in British society as a goliath and subtly warned that the power of their press was not to be underestimated, as they saw the victory of Tory candidate John Major as a direct result of their tipping the scales.As the Guardian noted in their column about the process that goes into their endorsements, “a general election endorsement is probably the most important editorial that a newspaper can publish – and almost certainly the longest too.”In the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, the New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton certainly met the Guardian’s standard for length, coming in at 1,419 words. The Guardian’s endorsement of Labour earlier this month came in at 1,366. The New York Post elected to endorse Donald Trump in the Republican Primary, with a 540 word justification. But when they chose not to endorse for the general election in November, their Election Day cover left their feelings pretty clear:The lines between news and entertainment are growing ever more blurred and the attention span of the electorate is growing ever more narrow. The tabloid treatment of our elected officials reflects this. It’s certainly a different take on how outlets attempt to influence our choices at the ballot box, and it’s one that we should not discount at home or abroad.[author]About the Author: Andrew Ricci, Vice President at D.C. communications firm LEVICK. Andrew, an experienced media relations expert, content-creation specialist, and public affairs strategist, started his career working on political campaigns and on Capitol Hill, serving as a senior communications aide to Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) and as the Congressman’s official spokesman during his reelection campaign. At LEVICK, Andrew now counsels a wide range of clients navigating reputational challenges in the public eye.[/author]