Editorial: The Times should be more transparent about McGinty endorsement

Around this time in a presidential election, readers begin turning to the opinion pages of their newspapers to see who the paper’s editorial board choose to endorse.

While some publications choose to remain impartial, most begin handing down endorsements to one candidate or another. This year, those endorsements have largely gone to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

And for papers that serve a city or statewide readership, those endorsements also trickle down the ballot. Editorial boards will also endorse candidates for U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and occasionally state offices.

But last Friday, the editorial board of The New York Times endorsed Katie McGinty in the Pennsylvania Senate race, making the case for the Democratic challenger who is running against incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey.

While we would expect a newspaper like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Philadelphia Inquirer or Harrisburg’s The Patriot-News to endorse a candidate like McGinty, who its readers can vote for, it’s out of place for The New York Times to do so. And the legacy newspaper said that it plans on making even more endorsements in key races in the future, despite only ever endorsing New York elections and the presidential election up to this point.

Although the motives for the unprecedented endorsement remain unclear, the race it chose to weigh in on was clearly intentional. Democrats must win five seats in order to gain control of the Senate, and Pennsylvania is one of the states that is crucial for accomplishing that goal. Recent polls have shown the two candidates in a virtual tie, and the Senate race is one of the most expensive races with $88.9 million in spending going toward their campaigns.

The Times is one of the most influential newspapers in the country that encompasses a national and global audience with an expanding readership. The editorial board has every right to endorse any candidate it wishes, but if it is using its influence to impact the election, then it should disclose that to its readers.

For the newspaper that created the “public editor” position so it could be more transparent with its readers, The Times has failed to be fully transparent with its Senate endorsement.

When the Republican Senate majority could be upturned in a few key states, a legacy newspaper as well-known as The Times could potentially sway its readers in Pennsylvania in one direction or the other. Because only a small portion of its readers are from Pennsylvania, the Times’ endorsement is unlikely to affect a majority of its readers. It’s clear the endorsement was made with an intention to influence voters.

Yet, without the paper being transparent on why it decided to endorse a Pennsylvania Senate race for the first time, readers have no insight on whether the endorsed candidate truly aligns with the editorial board’s values or if it is using it’s power to help regain Senate control for Democrats.

The difference is that the former is good for democracy while the latter threatens it.

Furthermore, if the paper wanted to be balanced about this approach, it would look at every Senate race, not just the “important” ones. If McGinty was ahead of Toomey by five or six points in the polls, or if Democrats were certain to win a majority, would the Times have weighed in at all?

The media has a powerful role in political elections. Major newspapers must understand the power they have and use it to strengthen our democracy.

We as readers and citizens should be informed of any biases a paper may have. The Times should be fully transparent with its readers so it doesn’t risk misleading them.