The Columbian Endorses Obama

The Columbian's (Vancouver, WA) editorial board endorsed Obama last week with the caveat - I kid you not - "Our opinion is only that, refuted by many, carrying no distinguishable impact. Our opinion is offered more to stimulate conversation than to change minds".[1] (emphasis mine)

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, one meaning of endorse is:

"2 a: to approve openly <endorse an idea> ; especially : to express
support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral
candidate> b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation endorsed by a pro basketball player>"[2]

The editorial board of this newspaper doesn't think they will influence anyone within their large circulation audience. If that's the case, why didn't the board say they are not endorsing anyone, list the major advantages and disadvantages of each candidate, and then leave it for discussion.

That's called good, professional, journalistic practice where one just reports the facts. Wait, that's what news articles are supposed to be. Opinion pieces, on the other hand, are where you take those facts and draw a conclusion! After all according to Merriam-Webster, the word opinion "implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute ."[3]

An editorial is done precisely to give one's reasons for their conclusion (in this case the Obama endorsement) that is then available to be disputed. The Columbian editorial board wants to be able to give their opinion without being held accountable for it.

That way, they influence people while brushing aside any criticism by saying "we were just trying to stimulate conversation".

That's intellectually dishonest.


[1] "In Our View: Obama for President", The Columbian, Oct. 16,2008.
http://www.columbian.com/article/20081016/OPINION02/710169982/-1/opinion
[2] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endorse
[3] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion