In the 34-year history of USA Today, the Editorial Board has never
taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed
opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our
readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice
is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we
revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never
seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party
nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences.
This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald
Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit
for the presidency.
It really speaks volumes that a newspaper that has never endorsed a candidate for president in its history would see fit to speak out so vociferously. In the same way that whitespace can amplify a message in graphic design, USA Today’s decades of political neutrality amplifies their message against Trump. This is not a normal election.
See also: The Arizona Republic:
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have
never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never.
This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative
ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different.
The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not
I don’t know how much effect any newspaper endorsement has on election results, but these ought to be more effective than Clinton endorsements from traditionally liberal editorial boards like those of The New York Times and The Washington Post.
★ Friday, 30 September 2016