October 28th, 2008 
joel This is not Grandpa Mead’s newspaper anymore.
Though it’s not unheard of for the Erie Times-News to endorse a Democrat for president, the paper’s Editorial Board has historically leaned conservative with their national picks.
That’s why it is a little shocking that the paper, which continues to be owned by the very pro-business Mead family, not only endorsed Barack Obama for President, but also Kathy Dahlkemper for Congress in the 3rd District.
In their support for Obama, the Board noted,
Because of his steady hand, his demonstrated intelligence and his promise to listen to a range of views on domestic and international issues, the Erie Times-News Editorial Board endorses U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president.
As if to anticipate the incredulity of their readers, they continue:
We do so with firm conviction and a confident voice, even as we acknowledge that U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a war hero, has admirable strengths and deep experience. Our family-owned newspaper and this Editorial Board are proud of our independence. Our endorsements have favored Republicans in five out of seven elections since 1980, but twice have endorsed a Democrat.
I get a sense that the Editorial Board is reassuring themselves even as they go out on a limb with this endorsement in contrast to their conservative history.
With Dahlkemper, the Times News played defense in saying they weren’t just picking the lead horse but even though Rep. Phil English has great understanding of the policies and issues at hand, they are choosing a newcomer who will bring “fresh ideas and energy” to the post.
What you won’t find in either of these endorsements is a review of either Obama’s or Dahlkemper’s record or a vetting of their position statements. Instead, it seems that the Editorial Board has a desire to surf the wave of popular support for the Democrats.
My point is not to dispute the paper’s choices, but rather focus on the cues in their endorsements that indicate a significant change in the political orientation of the Erie Times News; which in turn might be indicating the diminishing role of the Mead family on the editorial choices of their family’s newspaper.
Posted in 
Tags: 
Loading ...
The Times is no different than any other newspaper, losing readers, and pandering to what they perceive to be their biggest audience. Since Erie has been a single party town for half a century, where’s the mystery? Their editorials have been going more left for several years, and their columnists are out of balance towards the left as well, where they used to be more in balance, to maybe a tad conservative. And for the past decade they haven’t seemed to see a public dollar they haven’t supported spending, twice.
I have canceled my subscription to the Times-News TWICE in the past 2 years because they are so left leaning! My wife signed us up again this summer: three months for $20 ( or something) and they gave us a $30 gift card to some place and an umbrella. They paid us to be a reader.
The sooner the old media collapses under the weight of its biases the better. Bias is not profitable and ultimately every business comes down to earnings. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of liberals.
Interesting poll from EMGR just weeks before Jack passed:
http://globalerie.com/jacktirak/2008/05/18/is_erie_news_media_biased/trackback/
If you think there are biases now, just what do you think will happen when there is ZERO effort toward fact checking and anyone with an agenda and a keyboard can spew out anything they want?
If a view leans toward some people, it’s called the truth.
If a view leans away, it’s called “bias.”
For all of the structured media’s faults (and there are many), at least we have a physical presence in the community, a phone number, real faces and real names (some of us).
Eventually we do have to answer to the people holding the remotes.
Nameless bloggers blasting away at anything not in their narrow field of vision is NOT the key to the future protections an unfettered press provides free people.
Scott, I don’t agree with labeling “nameless bloggers” as people “blasting away at anything not in their narrow field of vision”. The spirit of this medium is to allow everyone to have a voice, whether you agree with it or not. Granted, there are many comments on blogs that are completely worthless, but there are many that can’t or would rather not reveal themselves for different reasons who offer thoughtful points on whatever the subject is. The newcasts and newspapers are still going to be relied upon for unbiased information, but blogging and sharing information that way is here to stay, and it’s going to continue to grow whether we like it or not.
Scott,
I think the market will decide who is best ( kind of like it is already) If, over time, they lie or are reckless they won’t get hits or viewers or whatever. Popular websites that want to stay that way will tell the truth because it is good for business. This ‘fact checking’ notion is a decoy, in my opinion. Dan Rather was supposedly fact checked by a HUGE news gathering institution. Same goes with Newsweek ( they spiked the Monica Lewinski story).
The national mainstream media had their chance and the decided to influence rather than report. They are rapidly liquidating the assets that make them different; just yesterday the LA Times announced a big layoff, the same day I found out that they won’t release a video tape about an event they reported about that Obama attended. That must just be an ironic coincidence.
I think local and regional news will always have a place in the market and a well staffed news room is critical to the vitality of the region, but nationally I don’t think so.
Heavy D, Fox News has a history of half-truths and in some cases outright lies. However, their viewership hasn’t declined much. How do you explain that one?
While I admit to some stereotyping in labelling all bloggers as “faceless,” my initial concern of accountability remains valid.
A well known local talk radio host, after I told him I didn’t think one of his premises was factually correct, said something I’ll never forget:
“I’m not in news, Scott, I’m in entertainment. I don’t have to be right. Just interesting.”
A lot of things are interesting and entertaining on the Internet. That doesn’t make them right.
And citing a few examples of excesses in the work of hundreds of mainstream outlets with thousands of reporters doesn’t make the approach wrong, either.
But unnamed sources used by the media everyday are fine. Right Scott?
If you trust the source, uh Crank?
Ron, anybody who strays from the liberal line ( in the media) is a heretic. Notice Fox News isn’t laying off anyone and the NY Times, La Times, NBC and many other news outlets are? Maybe, just maybe they aren’t lying as much as you think. They present both sides and the viewers can decide; Colmes gets as much time as Hannity. O’Reily has on guests all the that disagree with him. Geez, one cable network doesn’t have the party line and everyone freaks out. Funny how they are so profitable despite all these half truths.
Now the response ( I’ve had this conversation before) is people are too dumb to know or whatever so they watch Fox. Then why are people choosing Fox over MSNBC & CNN every night? Because they like being lied to?
I get it. It’s okay for media types to use unnamed sources, which in some cases, like with the NYT for example, don’t even exist, but unless you’re part of the journalism club, a blogger doesn’t have the same right of anonymity, because only the journalism class has the ability to vet truth. No wonder the NYT, LAT and the like are on a fast track to extinction. Arrogance can be a deadly thing.