The power of a publisher

Some consider the Cleveland Plain Dealer's decision to endorse no one for president a victory -- the paper almost gave the nod to Bush.

By Lisa Chamberlain

Oct. 27, 2004 | Election Day hasn't yet arrived and already a few crucial votes won't be counted in Ohio. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest newspaper, published a nonendorsement Tuesday in the presidential election after a bitter feud erupted between the editorial board -- which voted to endorse John Kerry -- and the paper's publisher, Alex Machaskee, who favors George W. Bush.

In its editorial, the newspaper acknowledged that a majority of the board had voted to endorse Kerry. (The vote has been erroneously reported as 5-2 when there are 10 people on the board, including Machaskee, although he rarely takes part in day-to-day editorial decisions.) What the Plain Dealer didn't acknowledge, however, is the part its publisher played in squelching the majority vote. Even so it is no secret that Machaskee injected himself into one of the most important presidential elections in recent history, in one of the most important swing states in the nation.

After overruling its board, the Newhouse-owned paper was set to run an endorsement of Bush at Machaskee's behest last Sunday, written by deputy editorial director Kevin O'Brien, a staunch conservative. Immediately before the vice presidential debate in Cleveland on Oct. 5, O'Brien wrote a column giving Dick Cheney advice on how to win the debate: "The Democrats and their media sympathizers have spent four-plus years making you out to be a mean old sourpuss who hasn't cracked a smile since public hangings went out of fashion. Take this opportunity to remind America that you're a human being possessed of a wealth of knowledge and experience and a wry sense of humor."

But according to sources at the paper, longtime editorial page editor Brent Larkin stepped in to stop the Bush endorsement. As one reporter at the Plain Dealer put it, "Larkin made a Herculean effort to move it from a pro-Bush to a no endorsement. [It] must have taken a lot to back the publisher down. That's considered a huge victory."

In its non-endorsement, the Plain Dealer, internally deadlocked, made the case for ducking its own responsibility: "After nearly four years spent watching George W. Bush as president, and after a year of watching Sen. John Kerry campaign to oust him, we have decided not to add one more potentially polarizing voice to a poisoned debate. We make no endorsement for president this year. Our readers certainly should not take that as an invitation to walk away from the civic responsibility of casting a ballot for the man they believe best suited to facing the challenges of the Oval Office."

"It's not so much that the publisher overruled the editorial board," said Bill Reader, assistant professor of journalism at the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. "That happens all the time. But it's important to pick a side and vote, not then say, 'Well, we can't decide, so we're not going to.' They in effect became the disinterested nonvoter, and in Ohio that just doesn't fly. The Philadelphia Inquirer weighed in with something like 25 editorials about why Kerry is the pick," Reader continued. "The Chicago Tribune has a big target on its chest for endorsing Bush. The paper in Crawford, Texas, endorsed Kerry. So some papers are being very brave."

(The Washington Post reported Wednesday that relative to 2000, 36 papers have switched from Bush to Democratic candidate Kerry; six have switched from the Democrat, Al Gore, to Bush; and nine have made no endorsement.)

Aly Colon, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, an independent school for journalists, is a little more generous in his interpretation of the brouhaha. "You're looking at a polarization that does mirror the division in the body politic itself. But it's not uncommon that when the newspaper's editorial board favors a particular candidate the publisher tends to have the final say on what takes place. The fact that the Cleveland Plain Dealer decided not to endorse a particular candidate officially is in many ways admirable, in that the publisher decided not to have one or the other take precedent. The endorsement issue is not the same as a vote."

The precedent of publishers having the final say in editorial endorsements dates back to a time when cities had more than one paper and each had a clear point of view. Publishers were journalists who also happened to be business owners. Now, many publishers are not journalists at all -- which is certainly the case with Machaskee.

Next page: On his way up the corporate ladder, Machaskee earned the nickname "The Snake"