When I traveled to London, Dublin and Paris earlier this year, taking photos of people actually reading newspapers became sort of an obsession for me. As a young journalist who was thrust out of school a little over three years ago into a melting media market that bled jobs daily, life became uncertain and depressing and well, worrisome.

I felt as though the dreams I had been building upon since middle school of becoming a writer were falling through the cracks – and that I would never get them back. I never could be a Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, writing about worldly problems and changing the world in the process. I could never be a Ben Badikian, an editor at the Washington Post who came into possession of The Pentagon Papers. I would never be in that atmosphere. That excitement, that time.

I could never write for the Los Angeles Times or Atlantic Monthly or the dozen other publications which I cherished more than life itself.

And while now, I have resolved my fear and am more in the “I can” rather than the “I can’t” box, the possibility of not fulfilling my passions is still a frightening concept. I know I have what it takes to write for the L.A. Times and the NY Times and whatever else. I just know it. It’s the one thing in my life that I am completely, 100 percent sure of. When I get there, I don’t know. But I will get there.

In the meantime, I found comfort knowing that there were still people who actually read newspapers, even if it was overseas. There are papers everywhere you go in London. On the tube, in cafes, on the street – it’s really a reading culture, and as someone from Los Angeles which suffers more from a “tv culture,” it made me feel at home.

The world of media is changing right in front of our eyes and it’s amazing to be in the middle of this revolution. I am excited to see what the future holds for journalism, but for now, I revel in the fact that somewhere in the world, someone cares.

Photo by socraticgrant

Daily newspapers have a long history of endorsing candidates for office, whether that may be for governor, or in this year’s case, for president. As the race winds down between Democratic hopeful Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain, Editor & Publisher has published an updated tally of print media outlets across the nation endorsing the candidates.

Overall, The Obama-Biden ticket has the lead with 121 newspapers total, with an over 13.5 million circulation. McCain and Palin have the endorsements of 42 newspapers, with a total circulation of 3.8 million. Here in California, Obama has won the support of 23 newspapers, including The Fresno Bee, The Los Angeles Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, The Modesto Bee, Pasadena Star-News, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. John McCain has the support of five newspaper in California, including the San Francisco Examiner (seriously?) and San Diego Union-Tribune

Interestingly enough, the three top circulated newspapers in the country, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have not endorsed anyone. Peculiar…very peculiar. I don’t particularly read USA Today or The Wall Street Journal, but as you might have guessed from reading this little blog I keep, that I am a New York Times nut. In the case of the NY Times, it’s a bit strange they haven’t endorsed anyone, particularly because the commentary in the paper is more or less a dead give away that they support Barack Obama and because in 2004′s election, they publicly endorsed Democratic nominee John Kerry. And don’t forget that they came out in support of Hillary Clinton during this year’s primaries as well.
Barack Obama’s official site does have a list of newspapers that have endorsed his bid for the presidency, and also some excerpts that are very eloquent and so well written, that I would like to highlight just two of them here.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama’s character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity…In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

From the Boston Globe:

The nation needs a chief executive who has the temperament and the nerves to shepherd Americans through what promises to be a grueling period – and who has the vision to restore this country to its place of leadership in the world. Such a leader is at hand. With great enthusiasm, the Globe endorses Senator Barack Obama for president. The charismatic Democrat from Illinois has the ability to channel Americans’ hopes and rally the public together, at a time when the winds are picking up and the clouds keep on darkening…An early Obama campaign slogan declared, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” His critics deemed such rhetoric too ethereal. Now it seems prescient, as the nation confronts a financial crisis of historic proportions, as well as all the other policy failures and debt-fueled excesses of the last eight years. The United States has to dig itself out. Barack Obama is the one to lead the way.

It’s interesting that newspapers feel the need or desire to endorse potential presidential candidates. In a profession where objectivity rules overs subjectivity and fair and balanced is the ultimate goal (Sorry Fox News, you fail at your own motto), should newspapers endorse candidates? Is it there place to do such a thing? Or are they meant to provide you a service of news without injecting opinions in it? What is accomplished by endorsements? Are people really swayed by their respective newspaper’s decision to endorse a candidate?

These are important questions to be asking. My particular feeling about the matter is divided. I love seeing the publications I read take a stance on issues, at the same time, I feel that remaining neutral is completely respectable and credible. One thing I can tell you, is that even though it’s not Nov. 4 yet, history has already been made in so many ways. As far as newspapers are concerned, it is interesting to note that that the Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama, the first time the paper has endorsed a Democrat for president. In another move of epic proportions, the Los Angeles Times’ endorsement of Obama marks the first time the paper has endorsed anyone for president since 1972. Even Esquire magazine has gotten in the game and endorsed Obama!

Two more weeks. Just two more weeks.