I think it’s worth reiterating, before each election, why and how we make endorsements.
First is the issue of whether we should. Some U.S. newspapers have stopped making endorsements because of the confusion it can create by presenting both an editorial position and impartial news coverage of a campaign, and the reality that any endorsement would inherently draw objections from some readers. Then there is the matter that has been the subject of many academic studies over the years: Do they make a difference?
In my view, if an editorial page is going to be weighing in on key issues on a daily basis — as we do — then it would make no sense to go silent when it comes time to elect people who can act on those issues. As for the influence of endorsements, the research has shown that editorials on lower-profile races tend to have greater resonance. That makes sense. Democratic voters in the March 3, 2020, primary already have many hours of exposure to the candidates, between the town halls, debates and interviews. Few voters will get even a few seconds’ glimpse of the contenders for a judicial seat or the San Francisco school board.
Also, the robust traffic on our SFChronicle.com Voter Guide before recent elections suggests that folks are interested in our analysis.
Here’s how the process works:
Our editorial board interviews candidates along with advocates on the ballot measures. Those meetings are always on the record, and I some of them result in news stories. Critical point: While reporters and editors from the news side are invited to attend those meetings, they are not involved in endorsement deliberations. Those decisions are made by the editorial board — consisting of the publisher and members of the opinion staff — after we’ve had the meetings and done additional research. We call it the “separation of church and state.” The editors and reporters who produce the coverage on our news pages are charged to do so fairly, independently and without regard to our endorsement decisions.
And they do.
I’ve long believed that the value of our endorsements is not so much in the bottom line but in the explanations: detangling the claims of ballot measures that can be obtuse or flat-out deceptive, giving readers context and insight that is clearer and more succinct than the official handbooks, cutting through the spin and vitriol that comes in those mailers or on social media.
I look forward to your feedback.
John Diaz is The Chronicle’s editorial page editor. Follow him on Twitter: @JohnDiazChron. Email him at jdiaz@sfchronicle.com
