Talk:Lists of newspaper endorsements in United States presidential elections

Potentially unwieldy
I think having one central article for this may become unwieldy if past endorsements are included. I think the best way to manage this is to break it down my election season, as the template entails, and also by newspaper.

--Amwestover (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe eventually, but I think that's mitigated if when it gets large, break everything down by state. I think this page serves a great purpose of tracking how newspapers "vote," an end rendered impossible is these are left strictly in a year by year basis. --Kallahan (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is worthwhile, but obviously needs work. Papers that we don't have any endorsement record for should not be listed. It looks terrible. The layout is awkward with papers who only endorse candidates in the general election. And our data for pre-2000 elections is very lacking. I don't think breaking it down by state, I don't see how states are relevant. Breaking it down by year might work better, though it would be a problem if one wanted to see how a particular paper's endorsements. Would it be difficult or awkward to allow users to sort both by paper and year? --68.56.17.70 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the layout seems far too complicated to be able to be maintained. I think a simple list of which papers endorse which candidate, ordered by state, would be far better. The page is quite out of date; http://www.editorandpublisher.com seem to have a pretty up-to-date list, for October 15 look at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003873717. The complicated layout of the current page puts me off updating the page, since it would require considerable work.

Maybe once the election is over, the old layout can be restored, but while the page needs to constantly updated it should remain simple in design.

Tristan.buckmaster (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not realise that there are actually wikis with up-to-date listings of endorsements for 2004 and 2008. Would it not be best that this wiki simply provide a link to the other two wikis? Otherwise there should be at least some sort of explanation of why the papers listed are considered major publications and others are not. Was the list based on a minimum circulation or just some random list someone came up with?

Tristan.buckmaster (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the overhaul. Only thing is, the incumbent stuff looks very awkward. I am redoing it.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This page still just looks terrible.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How does this work with Journalistic Neutrality?
I've always found this practice unbelievable- Newspapers openly admitting themselves to be biased. Is there not criticism of the practice in the American context? 130.195.124.56 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)