The Boston Phoenix has endorsed Deval Patrick in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, while also throwing a kiss to Chris Gabrieli. But — in keeping with my theme of the week — why no mention of the third candidate, Tom Reilly, whom the paper ripped in an editorial just a week ago?
Similarly, the Phoenix chooses Deb Goldberg over Tim Murray in the governor’s race — and disappears Andrea Silbert. The paper also weighs in on the secretary of state’s race, Congress, and the state Senate.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
pkadzis
Dan: I don’t quite understand your obsession (perhaps too strong a word) for editorials that clearly advocate for a candidate and don’t mention opponents.There are many ways to endorse: One is in an analytic vein in which a publication weighs the merits and demerits of a pol or field of pols. (Your preference, it would seem.) The other is pure advocacy where the publication makes its case for its candidate more or less in terms of why the man or woman is worth a vote. And there are, I’m sure, other ways to do the deed. One format needn’t suit all.A final thought: it may take some of the fun out of an endorsement when a paper doesn’t slam the others that are running — I know I sometimes feel that way. But in an age of negativity, it does keep things on a higher plane. But I’ll knock of the high mindedness, I’m not sure it’s very convincing.
Anonymous
Think of the trend another way…If “candidate X” gets a newspaper endorsement containing NO mention of his/her opponent/s, all the easier for the selected candidate to re-use the piece in its entirety, unedited, in later campaign pieces. Puffery opportunity for the candidate and increased exposure for the newspaper. Side issue: does re-use of an editorial endorsement by a candidate fall under the “fair use” exemption so that it can be done without copyright infringement or payment ?