Readers Write: Presidential endorsements

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I began my love affair with the Minneapolis Star and Tribune when I was 11 years old — in 1969 — when I became a newspaper carrier under the late (great) Charles Goering in Montevideo. I’m now 66 years old, and other than during the four years I was out of state pursuing my doctoral degree, I have continually been a subscriber.

The Minnesota Star Tribune’s recent decision to shirk its responsibility and not provide an opinion and endorsement of a presidential candidate is no less cowardly than what we saw with the LA Times or the Washington Post — and for the first time ever, I’m left asking myself if there is value in being a subscriber in the future (“We remain confident in our decision to pause endorsements,” Oct. 30).

Given the true nature of the dangers to our democracy that another Trump administration would bring — something that I’m sure your editors are clearly aware of — it’s hard to discern exactly what could have really lead you to such an egregious decision. The citizens of Minnesota have counted on you for decades, and you’ve let them down!

Last weekend after the Washington Post made the same significant error in judgment, I canceled my subscription and removed its app from my phone. I’m left contemplating taking the same action with the Star Tribune — which has literally felt like home for half a century.

I suspect that there was a calculated strategy behind this decision, and I see the comment in the Oct. 30 column that it might not be forever. However, if former President Donald Trump were to be re-elected and enact some of the draconian (fascist) components of his policies (if you can really call them that) there may very well not be another meaningful opportunity in the future.

You have let the people of Minnesota down — you’ve let me down — and we’ve stood by you for years. That support may no longer be either deserved or possible, because at the end of the day, who wants to support such cowardice?

David Kohman, Bloomington

•••

I see the Star Tribune subscribes to the notion that if one repeats something often enough people will begin to believe it. The column on Oct. 30 defending the Star Tribune’s decision to not endorse political candidates is a confirmation of the Star Tribune’s decision to step away from being a community leader and attempt to be only an information conduit. One of the flaws in this approach is that it is a small next step to avoiding controversy and avoiding investigative reporting.

Trump attempted to overturn a valid election result. That action alone should disqualify him as an acceptable presidential candidate. Trump picked some highly qualified staffers during his first term in office who clearly state why he should not be re-elected. That should make him an unacceptable candidate. Trump is a convicted felon for his dishonest business practices. How is it possible a dishonest, convicted felon can be an acceptable presidential candidate? The list could be extended, but I will stop here.

It is outrageous that a newspaper with aspirations of quality should refuse to condemn Donald Trump.

Mark Brakke, Coon Rapids

•••

It was a wise courageous move for the Star Tribune to refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate this election due to the deep political divide within our current one-party-rule state, and throughout our nation. The candidates will be judged by voters on their past accomplishments, practices, party platforms and promises. Supplying that data on both candidates is the best practice to allow voters to freely make informed decisions. Many have charged that progressives have gained the upper hand on the general media, perhaps disserving half of our countries citizens.

But suddenly now the Washington Post has followed suit, apparently wanting to maintain the “consistent values the Post has always stood for.” Unfortunately, reports indicate that the Post is suddenly losing some 200,000 subscribers (10%) over this decision.

Personally, I feel that eliminating the bias will reveal the truth that only an independent, trusted, credible voice can portray. The editorials and commentaries have thoroughly provided the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates; no need to endorse either. Why not extend this to all political candidates and all media content? Religious leaders refrain from political endorsements; independent media should follow suit.

Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis

•••

As a longtime voter, I was surprised to receive your endorsement on Sept. 15 (“Endorsing voters in this year’s election,” editorial). Given my lack of experience in public office and tendency to believe almost anything, I had hoped you would provide clear analysis of conflicting candidate positions. Unfortunately, the issues that I care about have been mostly buried under a preponderance of stories about the former president, who has fooled me more than once.

Your misleading headlines and rationalizations of campaign events are often so absurd that I have to laugh. However, a new level of comedy was reached on Oct. 25 with Bret Stephens’ column titled “Harris resorts to name-calling.”

Since entering politics, Trump has used explicit name-calling to insult his opponents, including Vice President Kamala Harris. He has called her a Marxist, a communist and a fascist, as well as more personal insults. Characterizing Harris’ affirmation of the description of Trump as a fascist — by those who worked closely with him in the White House — as “name-calling” is a false equivalency. The double standard is glaringly obvious.

Instead of sharing Stephens’ perspective, you should have called him to task for it.

If the Star Tribune is not going to provide voters with clear political analysis, then its endorsement is meaningless, and we no longer need to subscribe. Moving forward, we will spend our news subscription dollars on sources capable of sharing valuable insights consistent with journalistic integrity in discerning the truth.

Steve Petermeier, Minneapolis

•••

Jeff Bezos posted the following on the Washington Post website, “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one,” Bezos is wrong. Newspapers have an opinion section to honor perspectives, and it is distinctly separated from the news section, which needs to be held to a position of objectivity. Endorsing candidates is an important function of a paper’s responsibility to communities.

Bezos didn’t make a principled, thoughtful decision. That would have happened if there was time given to discuss this decision, making sure that those who understand journalism would be allowed to weigh in. That clearly didn’t happen here, as evidenced by the many resignations from the editorial staff. Bezos made this decision just as they were ready to go to print with an endorsement for Harris. It was a calculated decision, not a principled one.

I am curious as to why a billionaire wants to own a paper. It can’t be that profitable. Does Bezos have an interest in the Fourth Estate? Does he care about how responsible journalism is crucial in today’s political climate? I don’t even think Watergate was this much a threat to democracy. Or is Bezos interested in owning information — information that he can manipulate for his own purposes? Maybe that’s what makes owning a newspaper so appealing.

Sheila Moriarty, St. Cloud

•••

The Bezos shot heard throughout the U.S. media world: “Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion.”

Gene Delaune, New Brighton

•••

Of all the unbelievable, crazy stuff we have witnessed recently, I really never thought I’d see the day when our nation’s free press would voluntarily give away its sacred First Amendment right by opting out of endorsing political candidates. In journalism school I was taught that the constitutionally protected free press had a responsibility to not only report factual information but also a duty to hold those we elect accountable to us, the people. Editorials, where the full weight and power of the free press is expressed through the editorial “we,” has traditionally been that accountability tool. There are many examples of journalist forebears who risked so much more than their pocketbooks in order to move our nation forward, protect democracy and ensure freedom of the press. At a critical time in our country’s history, this conviction is sadly lacking.

After this election, there needs to be a national self-examination to understand who we, as a nation, are and will be. The media also needs to do some soul-searching and ask themselves if they are willing to carry the torch of a free press forward. The Fourth Estate, as the press is called, alludes to media’s powerful, watchdog relationship over the three branches of government. Will media continue to be that watchdog and stand up to the pressures that speaking truth to power will surely bring? Will they accept the responsibilities of a constitutionally protected free press? Or will they sit back on their wallets and see what happens?

Mary McGarry Woitte, Eden Prairie