I subscribe to two periodicals - The New Yorker, which leans left and The Economist, which leans right.
The New Yorker has never endorsed a presidential candidate before, but this year they are making an exception. They have a long and in-depth explanation for their endorsement of John Kerry which is an excellent read.
The British-based Economist has been mostly supportive of Bush throughout his term and even backed his war in Iraq long after his reasons for invading fell apart like a house of cards. But now they are reluctantly endorsing Kerry calling it a choice between incompetence and incoherence. They got the incompetence part right.
Meanwhile, Kerry has cleaned the floor with Bush in the race for newspaper endorsements winning both the overall count 208 to 169 and the circulation race by 20 million to 14 million.
Kerry has also won the endorsement of 43 papers that backed Bush in 2000, while 16 papers that chose Bush in 2000 have decided to make no endorsement this year. On the flip side, Bush has picked up only seven papers that were for Gore in 2000.
But of course the “liberal media” is going to endorse Kerry, you say. Not so. According to Editor & Publisher which has been compiling these endorsement lists for several decades, the papers have given an overall edge to the Republican candidate in every year except one of Bill Clinton’s races. So having John Kerry win the endorsement race by a 5-3 margin is highly unusual.