Endorsements unnecessary

Editorial boards and newspapers are distinctly separate, but the distinction is lost when a newspaper prints, "The Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States," in its staff editorial. \nThe Tribune is the entire paper, not just the editorial board, but the public can't always see that. Despite their commitment to fighting bias, newspapers endorse candidates arguing that a long-standing tradition of endorsements allows them to do so. But we disagree with this practice.\nJournalism is one of the least trusted professions in the U.S. and ranks somewhere below car salesmen and politicians. As young journalists, we are motivated to change the negative perception. \nBut this practice of "endorsing" candidates inhibits our efforts and defies everything we value in journalism. We feel the media is hypocritical when it claims objectivity yet urges Americans to vote for a certain candidate. In the public's eye, appearing biased and being biased is, unfortunately, the same thing.\nIn our discussions, we couldn't see how media's endorsement of a candidate benefits the democratic process. The argument that journalists are more informed citizens and should "advise" the public with their oh-so-abundant intelligence on how to vote is egotistical and just plain wrong.\nSo what if newspapers have done it forever. So what if it's tradition. If the media wants to get rid of the "biased" label, it must appear as neutral as possible. \nAnd endorsements don't help them do that.