A minority of The Slate’s editorial board expresses its disagreement against the majority’s decision to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for President of the United States and Gov. Tim Walz (D–Minn.) for Vice President of the United States.

The decision to endorse was a rarity. The Slate hasn’t endorsed a candidate in over a decade. In 2020, the editorial staff remained neutral by endorsing “Vote your conscience.” They lamented that roughly 40% of the population does not vote and encouraged readers to register.

This endorsement is a controversial and significant decision. The opposition believes that the majority shares this sentiment because they did not endorse without considering negative feedback. 

Negative feedback, however, is where our argument begins.

Negative feedback is an innate component of journalism. As student journalists, we have been criticized for reporting stories that challenge campus groups, administrators, staff, students and stakeholders. 

Criticism was rampant last year after we reported controversial stories. One may recall seeing “Defund The Slate” on YikYak, a petty slogan coined after some were dismayed that we would report such controversies. 

It is human nature to become defensive when one’s reputation is challenged. It is also a dense assertion to argue that any news outlet must stay quiet about a newsworthy event to retain popularity.

I t is a journalist’s duty report on positive and negative events without fear or favor. After all, The Slate is not a public relations arm for any campus entity or person.

Likewise, it is also not a public relations arm for political candidates. 

The Slate is composed of student journalists, whose job it is to tell the story. Journalists are not the story; they are the voice. As a news organization, readers expect an objective source to report on events. Objective reporting ensures trust; an endorsement weakens trust.

We anticipate the counterargument that opinion sections are germane to newspapers. We agree with this position but only after emphasizing a crucial difference: Opinion articles are associated with the writer’s name. 

A byline first shows the writer’s name, then the position. The endorsement omits the names but retains the title. The majority, therefore, are not attributing themselves to the article, but rather their titles. 

Endorsing a candidate places journalists inside the story. The audience will not be receptive to the arguments made by the majority. The story is instead about the decision that our organization has made because that is the most newsworthy component.

Media bias must also be considered. Endorsing a political candidate and championing the decision is the greatest way for a news organization to announce their biases. Consider this in a time when media trust is at record lows, and organizations like CBS and ABC are receiving a public drubbing on social and traditional media for clear omissions to their reporting in favor of Harris. 

Biased reporting is an unfortunate reality to the human experience, not a celebratory cause. 

In opinion articles, bias is acceptable because it is under the writer’s name. The natural takeaway when one sees the endorsement is not that a writer is biased, but rather the newspaper is biased. 

This creates distrust between our organization and our readers, whether warranted or unwarranted. Per a Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media, tying the lowest in the poll’s 52-year history. At a record-breaking 39%, more Americans have no trust at all in the media.

Our argument has not yet, nor will it, express political opinions to support or oppose either candidate. This is our effort to ensure that our readers are awarded a perspective that limits bias as much as possible.

We hope that increasing media trust is a mutual goal between us and the majority, but we fail to see how a political endorsement affirms this ideal.

W e also question the intent of the decision to endorse on Oct. 22. Pennsylvania’s deadline for registering to vote is Oct. 21. This endorsement cannot increase voter registration. With only two weeks preceding Election Day on Nov. 5, the opposition believes that most readers will have already decided their preferred candidates.

An endorsement is meant to encourage readers to vote for the endorsed candidates. The timing represents a lukewarm effort to satisfy this goal. It implies that the endorsement accomplishes little beyond using a title to substantiate personal preferences.

O ur opposition is not done with ease. We are arguing against our fellow student journalists and leaders of this organization. We have also built friendships with them. With humility, we hope the majority does not consider our opposition as an affront against those friendships.

But if we dared to refrain from expressing our dissent, we would have violated our interest in protecting The Slate’s reputation and jeopardized its reputation. We write to protect our understanding of journalistic ideals, which we believe our campus community, our stakeholders and our country expect.

For these reasons, the minority of The Slate’s editorial board reiterates its dissent against this endorsement.

Share