The Erie Times-News: Tyranny by oligarchy

Kevin Cuneo pounded yet another nail into the coffin of his so-called “public editor” column today with a predictable panygyric hailing his newspaper’s “vital” role of “informing” the public by heralding its self-serving political and elitest biases for all to see in the form of electoral endorsements. Not on the editorial page, where the newspaper's institutional view belongs, but ironically on the op-ed page where views contrary to the newspaper’s editorial position traditionally appear, committing a double whammy against ethical journalism.

The Erie Times-News primps its self-image with pretensions of technological advances, but its institutional thinking is mired in the Dark Ages of journalism whence it began, completely out of touch with modern trends. Though the Times-News preaches precepts of democratic processes, it practices the self-indulgent tyranny of an oligarchy.

To bolter his case, Cuneo asserts that at some kind of conference down in North Carolina, 19 of 20 editors supported making endorsements. Since there are literally thousands of newspaper around the country, that’s hardly a scientific sample, much less a convincing one. For all we know it was a convention which excluded editors whose newspapers don’t make electoral endorsements.

Of course most newspapers support endorsements. They indulge the same unslakable thirst for power and influence peddling the Times-News does, like flies feeding on manure. It’s only the enlightened ones who understand the First Amendment doesn’t protect the press in order to grant it a bully pulpit.

Once again, Cuneo has usurped the true function of a public editor as reader advocate, instead playing the part of proselytizer, attempting to justify the newspaper’s archaic practice of endorsing candidates to consolidate its own political clout, influence and power.

To support his contention that newspapers have a divine right to endorse candidates, the best Cuneo can do is quote the editor of a newspaper whose founder absolutely rejects the idea of political endorsements by newspapers, and who himself presides over a newspaper, USAToday, which does not publish endorsements.

And goes on to say that while he’s not the editor of a local newspaper, he believes local newspapers should endorse. So Cuneo’s idea of sanctioning endorsements by local papers is to cite the editor of a non-local newspaper which doesn’t endorse. Apparently he couldn’t find an editor of a local paper to quote in his favor. With supporters like that, who needs detractors?

Cherry-picking from his “mail and phone calls,” Cuneo cites two women who told him they rely on the newspaper’s endorsements. But he doesn’t say how many were opposed.
Citing an “angry letter writer,” Cuneo asserts: “I don't think it's a good practice for me to comment on letters sent by readers. It's your chance to have your say.” But “your say” is drowned out by the ocean of print and high visibility the newspaper lavishes on the candidates it endorses.

“The newspaper doesn't force anything,” Cuneo says, erecting a straw man in order to knock him down “It merely provides information for readers to use as they see fit.”

Who said anything about “force?” The issue is using the newspaper for undue influence and unbridled access to elected policymakers on behalf of its own agenda, not force. If the newspaper wants to buy influence using prime advertising space on its editorial page, it should be compelled to register as the lobbyist it really is.