The piece you cited said: "In contrast, when we did our final count in 2004, John Kerry barely edged George Bush, 213-205, and in elections before then, the GOP candidate almost always took the lion's share of endorsements."

Emphasis mine. So, in the past, the GOP got "help" from the media? That statement practically invalidates the rest of the article, imho.

Locally, I've heard a lot of people say that if the newspaper endorses a candidate, they're more likely to vote against that candidate. I'm not saying that's a majority opinion...I really wouldn't know...but it does go to show that newspaper endorsements are not always a help. I know I've always been skeptical about anybody endorsed by the Seattle Times, for example.

Newspaper? Ah, obscure historical reference, had to wiki the term.

I think the "majority" of the electorate have come to despise the "media" in all its forms, except perhaps the non-media media like the Daily Show which seems to hold for people more "truth" in its "coverage" than much of the traditional unbiased brick and mortar media of the past, so the endless debates over liberal bias are becoming as increasingly irrelevant as attempts at unbiased fair reporting. I think the new trend in "news" in fact is to have a viewpoint which has its drawbacks but its own honesty, too.

One additional point. In many larger newspapers, the editorial page reflects the publisher's (or owner's) voice and politics and is completely separate from the newsroom so political endorsements is not necessarily an indication of reporters' or general newsroom political leanings. I would agree, however, that in many newsrooms the individual political leaning is to the left, although in the best of them you could not tell from the reporting, or at least you could not some years back. Geographic exceptions aside, I think many reporters are closet liberals perhaps because they often see on a daily basis the failure of our institutions to address social justice issues and the humanistic toll that takes ... and of course because most reporters are pretty well educated. Sorry, couldn't resist.

That's silly talk.
Read the article again.

The article states that the GOP candidate has almost always taken the "lion's share of endorsements" yet the GOP candidate has not always won. So, really, how much clout and impact have endorsements really had on things? I remain unconvinced.

Since Greg Mitchell is the editor of Editor & Publisher which is devoted to the newspaper industry, I think he has a more favorable bias toward newspapers and their impact than much of the general public has making his POV questionable, imho.

I mean, gosh, Freelancer sounds pretty intelligent and he/she had to wiki it to figure out what we were even talking about.

And my original statement was 'I think Democrats have learned to "expect no help" from the media'

That in the last election, the overwhelming majority of newspapers could not help but see the difference between the Presidential candidates' and their VP candidates, to the point they endorsed the Democratic ticket is to their credit but should never and was not "expected".

"Help"? Yes... maybe.

"Expected"? Nope.