The question for today is political endorsements - should we believe them and what effect do they have? Most familiar are individual and organizational endorsements on the national, and to a lesser extent, state levels.

The purpose and effect of endorsements is not as apparent as is their prevalence. For some candidates a particular endorsement is used to convey an immediate, short-hand and specific position statement. The candidate endorsed by the AFL-CIO is not a supporter of right-to-work laws or strike injunctions. Merely by virtue of the endorsement the candidate makes a statement as to numerous positions and overall attitudes in sound byte fashion.

Similarly, an endorsement may simply be used to say "look at the important people I know." For example, does an endorsement by Barbra Streisand, Ted Turner or Rosie O’Donnell convey a substantive message – the candidates position on NAFTA, prison reform or judicial salaries? Hardly. At best such endorsements may convey a general position - the candidate is a liberal, conservative, environmentalist, or in some cases, just a buffoon.

These types of endorsements are, or should be, within the competence of the American public to understand and evaluate. "Should be", because anyone who has ever watched the "Jaywalking" segment of The Tonight Show will stand agog at the incredible political and historical ignorance of "the people"--even those with a "higher" education.

The last, and perhaps most insidious endorsement, is that of the supposed "objective observer." But is there any person or entity that the public views as an "objective observer" in political matters? I submit the answer is yes – newspapers. Of course the newspapers seek to foster this view regularly asserting their independence, First Amendment duties, and journalistic ethics. Such only begs the question, however. The issues are the extent to which such "objective" observers are "objective" and what effect do they have on the political process?

On a national level, newspaper endorsements reflect widely diverse views and suffer strong competition for acceptance. Likewise, the reputation of major national newspapers as liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, is fairly well-known. Even on a state level, there will be a variety of viewpoints from the newspapers. The public thus has the opportunity to consider many competing opinions.

However, what if the election is purely a local one for a judge, commissioner, city councilman or mayor and there is only one local, general circulation newspaper in the area? Historically, most cities had at least two newspapers. Today such is regrettably not the case. With the exception of a few cities such as New York and Chicago, most are one-paper towns.

Also, because of the nature of local and down-ballot races, they are rarely covered by the broadcast media who do not, at least officially, make endorsements. Likewise, because these candidates have numerically small constituencies, limited financing and few opportunities for widespread exposure, the public has only one place to look for traditional media information--the newspaper.

In these monopoly situations, what is the effect of the newspaper endorsement? The question can be answered with another question. How many times have you seen voters walk into the voting place carrying the newspapers’ endorsement list for these local and down-ballot races?

But are these endorsements really what the public perceives them to be - objective, unbiased and untainted? To answer that question, there are things which the public needs to know.

First, who are the anonymous individuals on the editorial board who decide the endorsements, what are their methods and standards, and what information do they consider in making their determination?

Second, what relationship does the newspaper or the board members have with any candidate? The fact that the candidate’s company was a major advertiser in the paper might make a difference to the credibility accorded the endorsement by the public. It might also make a difference that an editor was (a) a social friend or frequent guest of the candidate; (b) served on various boards or committees with the candidate; (c) the candidate assisted the editor in obtaining a position on a board or committee; (d) the candidate donated to, served on the board of or assisted a pet charity of the editor or (e) relatives of the candidate had any similar relationship with the editor.

Third, as an institutional matter, would it make a difference to the casual reader if the newspaper, either through its editorial page or staff reporters had repeatedly savaged the non-endorsed candidate but effusively praised the endorsed candidate?

All of these questions, and many more, should be considered in evaluating such endorsements. The public of course has the obligation to critically evaluate the endorsement-a consider the source test. But does the "objective endorser" also have a duty to inform the public of these circumstances? It does.

Absent such pertinent information, "objective" newspaper endorsements and tooth fairies occupy the same realm - Fantasy Land at Disney World. Unfortunately, if voters blindly accept such endorsements they cede their precious franchise to the opinions, biases and values of anonymous third parties - hardly a noble monument to the memory of Bunker Hill, New Orleans, or Normandy. Unless a voter is willing to take the time to investigate and evaluate the "objectivity", the integrity of the election process might be best served by such voter gently depositing the endorsement in the circular file cabinet and going fishing.