ADVERTISEMENT

Endorsing for president since 1884

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,700
61,010
113
So, The Gazette has been making presidential endorsements every election since 1884. That’s 140 in human years.



OK, fine. We didn’t formally endorse in 1912 and 1916. But clearly, we had strong feels for Woodrow Wilson.


Our first endorsement came in a presidential campaign widely regarded as the dirtiest in history. Well, until recently.




In 1884, Democratic New York Gov. Grover Cleveland was pitted against prominent Republican congressional leader James G. Blaine. It was a knockdown, drag-out war of attrition.


In July 1884, the campaign was shaken by a small newspaper in Buffalo. Cleveland, it reported, had fathered a child out of wedlock and refused to marry the mother, a widow named Maria Halpin. All hell broke loose as the story circulated across the country.


Cleveland did not deny the story. Asked by allies how to reply to the scandal, Cleveland said “Tell the truth.” Honesty? Weird.


More allegations piled on about Cleveland being a drunk who kept women handy near the Executive Mansion. Opponents claimed Cleveland was secretly being treated for a “malignant disease.” Cleveland’s once formidable image as a reformer took a beating.





Blaine had problems of his own. His opponents to dredged up a scandal involving Blaine in the 1870s. Blaine corresponded with a railroad executive, Warren Fisher. The letters were shady with a distinct smell of influence peddling. One correspondence ended with a request that Fisher burn the letter. Fisher apparently lost his matches and the letters went public.


Blaine also had to deal with a civil war of sorts in the Republican Party. A reform-minded faction, the Mugwumps, was out to clean up the party’s corruption. Blaine tried to straddle the battle lines between reformers and “Independent” Republicans, with mixed results.


There was no social media in 1884. It’s true. Instead, the campaigns staged massive parades, with costumed supporters and chants that might make great tweets.


“Blaine! Blaine! James G. Blain. The white-plumed knight from the state of Maine!” Republicans chanted.


“Blaine! Blaine! Jay Gould Blaine! The continental liar from the state of Maine!” Democrats retorted, including the Gould, a wealthy railroad magnate known for unscrupulous business practices. They also chanted “Burn the letter.”


The Evening Gazette was in Blaine’s corner.


“As the election is near at hand it behooves every Republican to be on guard and prepare for the final grand charge upon the enemy, that is to exterminate them for another four years,” we wrote for publication on Oct. 30, 1884.


We declared that Republican rule has been magnificent, and Americans have “never been as prosperous and happy as they are at present.”


Trade policy was a big issue. Cleveland favored free trade. Republicans favored protectionism, arguing free trade would help Britain at the expense of workers here. We urged readers to vote a straight Republican ticket.


It is part of “every true American’s duty to work for a ticket that favors the people of America, as against that which means help for England …”


But Blaine was damaged late in the campaign by a supporter, Rev. Samuel Burchard, who described Democrats’ heritage using the phrase “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.” No, the event wasn’t at Madison Square Garden.


It angered Irish Catholics in New York, whose support Blaine courted.


Blaine narrowly lost New York and the election. Afterward, he wrote “the Lord sent upon us an ass in the shape of a preacher and a rainstorm, to lessen our vote in New York.”


In 1888, The Gazette picked Republican Benjamin Harrison. Our first winner.


(319) 298-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
 
So, The Gazette has been making presidential endorsements every election since 1884. That’s 140 in human years.



OK, fine. We didn’t formally endorse in 1912 and 1916. But clearly, we had strong feels for Woodrow Wilson.


Our first endorsement came in a presidential campaign widely regarded as the dirtiest in history. Well, until recently.




In 1884, Democratic New York Gov. Grover Cleveland was pitted against prominent Republican congressional leader James G. Blaine. It was a knockdown, drag-out war of attrition.


In July 1884, the campaign was shaken by a small newspaper in Buffalo. Cleveland, it reported, had fathered a child out of wedlock and refused to marry the mother, a widow named Maria Halpin. All hell broke loose as the story circulated across the country.


Cleveland did not deny the story. Asked by allies how to reply to the scandal, Cleveland said “Tell the truth.” Honesty? Weird.


More allegations piled on about Cleveland being a drunk who kept women handy near the Executive Mansion. Opponents claimed Cleveland was secretly being treated for a “malignant disease.” Cleveland’s once formidable image as a reformer took a beating.





Blaine had problems of his own. His opponents to dredged up a scandal involving Blaine in the 1870s. Blaine corresponded with a railroad executive, Warren Fisher. The letters were shady with a distinct smell of influence peddling. One correspondence ended with a request that Fisher burn the letter. Fisher apparently lost his matches and the letters went public.


Blaine also had to deal with a civil war of sorts in the Republican Party. A reform-minded faction, the Mugwumps, was out to clean up the party’s corruption. Blaine tried to straddle the battle lines between reformers and “Independent” Republicans, with mixed results.


There was no social media in 1884. It’s true. Instead, the campaigns staged massive parades, with costumed supporters and chants that might make great tweets.


“Blaine! Blaine! James G. Blain. The white-plumed knight from the state of Maine!” Republicans chanted.


“Blaine! Blaine! Jay Gould Blaine! The continental liar from the state of Maine!” Democrats retorted, including the Gould, a wealthy railroad magnate known for unscrupulous business practices. They also chanted “Burn the letter.”


The Evening Gazette was in Blaine’s corner.


“As the election is near at hand it behooves every Republican to be on guard and prepare for the final grand charge upon the enemy, that is to exterminate them for another four years,” we wrote for publication on Oct. 30, 1884.


We declared that Republican rule has been magnificent, and Americans have “never been as prosperous and happy as they are at present.”


Trade policy was a big issue. Cleveland favored free trade. Republicans favored protectionism, arguing free trade would help Britain at the expense of workers here. We urged readers to vote a straight Republican ticket.


It is part of “every true American’s duty to work for a ticket that favors the people of America, as against that which means help for England …”


But Blaine was damaged late in the campaign by a supporter, Rev. Samuel Burchard, who described Democrats’ heritage using the phrase “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.” No, the event wasn’t at Madison Square Garden.


It angered Irish Catholics in New York, whose support Blaine courted.


Blaine narrowly lost New York and the election. Afterward, he wrote “the Lord sent upon us an ass in the shape of a preacher and a rainstorm, to lessen our vote in New York.”


In 1888, The Gazette picked Republican Benjamin Harrison. Our first winner.


(319) 298-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
The gazette should think about saving trees and ink and adopt an all sports format.
 
I’ve never really understood the need for newspapers and other media outlets to endorse candidates. They’re supposed to be reporting the news, not trying to influence it.

There have always been people, organizations and businesses who felt that their political opinions carried special weight,.. meh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ8869 and goldmom
I’ve never really understood the need for newspapers and other media outlets to endorse candidates. They’re supposed to be reporting the news, not trying to influence it.
Isn't that a post-war liberal (western "liberal" not right now vote-for-Democrats "liberal") conception of media? I thought newspapers were always partisan or affiliated with an interest group or a private interest. The post war formula is the news section and the editorial section. Maybe WWII isn't the right demarcation, but Hearst was definitely trying to influence public perception
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerome Silberman
When media held a different view in the eyes of the public. Newspapers were the only regular form of information and outside of cities and towns Americans often found out the latest weeks or months after the fact. The literacy rate had climbed and circulation of print media climbed with it.
And people tended to believe what they read. The “yellow” journalism that came out of circulation wars was the first time publishers were even questioned about truth and accuracy.
 
Isn't that a post-war liberal (western "liberal" not right now vote-for-Democrats "liberal") conception of media? I thought newspapers were always partisan or affiliated with an interest group or a private interest. The post war formula is the news section and the editorial section. Maybe WWII isn't the right demarcation, but Hearst was definitely trying to influence public perception
Hearst pushed sensationalism mostly to increase his circulation.
 
Isn't that a post-war liberal (western "liberal" not right now vote-for-Democrats "liberal") conception of media? I thought newspapers were always partisan or affiliated with an interest group or a private interest. The post war formula is the news section and the editorial section. Maybe WWII isn't the right demarcation, but Hearst was definitely trying to influence public perception
Yep. Most newspapers in the 19th century were associated with one political party or the other. That's why you sill see local newspapers called Democrat or Republican.
 
I’ve never really understood the need for newspapers and other media outlets to endorse candidates. They’re supposed to be reporting the news, not trying to influence it.
ba1dab0b-86b3-46cc-b763-9375881330b0_text.gif
 
Newspapers are no longer the main source of news for most
Americans. Today, many newspapers face declining customers
who have no need to pay for a daily newspaper. To endorse a
political candidate for U.S. President in the 21st century is now
meaningless for a newspaper.

Bottom Line: Today, intelligent American voters have numerous ways
to find out how a Presidential candidate stands on the basic issues
facing our nation. All of us need to do our homework and make good
choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
I’ve never really understood the need for newspapers and other media outlets to endorse candidates. They’re supposed to be reporting the news, not trying to influence it.
That is your interpretation of what the media is supposed to do…..A historical review of the media (newsprint) IN AMERICA would lead you to the opinion that newspapers expressed the opinions of their readers……For decades cities of any size normally had TWO newspapers…papers the supported “opposites”……Media coverage changed with the advent of TV and the development of the FCC and its adoption of “equal time” for political viewpoints……it has unfortunately spilled over into how newspapers are now expected to to report its news….. The most iconic newspaper headline in my lifetime is the Chicago Tribune’s “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline and the pic of HST smiling holding the paper for the camera….The irony there was not so much the headline was dead-assed wrong…the irony was The Tribune was (and is) a standard bearer for the Republican Party of Chicago, Illinois, the Midwest and the USA….and Harry got his sweet revenge.

The demise of the newspaper business in America has had far-reaching effects on how news is reported to America. The big losers of today are local and state news stories. Now, Americans “pick” their news source as is suits their news tastes…..regardless of the facts involved…..News networks are largely “spin factories” and not much more….left, right, authoritarian, anarchy-driven, damn near everything but factual.
 
Sadly, those days a long gone and true journalism is essentially dead.
Again…if you study “journalism” and media in the US, you will find that “point of view” journalism has been the mainstay of America’s free press…..cities had w2 newspapers…opposing points of view…..magazines had TIME and NEWSWEEK and they featured opposing points of view….this all changed with the advent of TV, the FCC and the “equal time” doctrine…..and it spilled over into the nation’s print media….where it just didn’t work until it destroyed it.
 
Again…if you study “journalism” and media in the US, you will find that “point of view” journalism has been the mainstay of America’s free press…..cities had w2 newspapers…opposing points of view…..magazines had TIME and NEWSWEEK and they featured opposing points of view….this all changed with the advent of TV, the FCC and the “equal time” doctrine…..and it spilled over into the nation’s print media….where it just didn’t work until it destroyed it.

I’m thinking more of NPR and the AP. Our sources of information that were supposed to be the most free of bias, which is what journalism is supposed to be based upon, have become far less objective than they used to be.
 
The only city I think that still has two opposing newspapers is NYC (Times and Post).
Boston used to and so did Chicago?
 
The only city I think that still has two opposing newspapers is NYC (Times and Post).
Boston used to and so did Chicago?
That is the demise of America’s “free press”…..you really ought to read O’Shea’s books….He talks about how “capitalism” has broken the backs of a “free media”…..Jim is an old DSM Register guy who stayed in the business and became President of the (Chicago)Tribune Co. during their “transformation” and a few years later moved to LA and over saw the Times downsizing, too…….he is a wealth of experience and information regarding daily news media in the US and has made a couple of my HS class reunions truly educational and interesting experiences.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT