Why The Economist endorses political candidates

IN THE PAST week two prominent American newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, announced that their editorial boards would not endorse a candidate for America’s presidency. They argued that this would be less divisive and promote their independence. Today The Economist issued its own endorsement, of Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. We have a long tradition of endorsing candidates, in Britain, America and around the world—not as a break with independence, but an example of it.

Our approach is simple. The Economist offers independent journalism on the forces changing the world. To that end, we deploy correspondents from Chicago to Shanghai to provide rigorous, fact-checked reporting and analysis. That work informs our Leader articles, which don’t just describe problems but offer ideas for how to fix them. To give opinions on policies but not politicians would be odd. So for decades we have written endorsements.

How we develop our opinions matters. The independence of our journalism is protected by the structure of our organisation, which has no commercial influence over editorial decisions. The Economist Group has no majority owner—our largest shareholder owns 43.4% of the company. Our endorsements are never reviewed by the chairman or the board of directors.

In our newsroom, opinions are shaped by two core values: a respect for liberal ideas, which have guided us since we were founded in 1843, and a belief that ideas should be challenged. Our editor decides our line after vigorous debate among our entire editorial staff. Everyone, from a recently hired intern to a 30-year veteran, is encouraged to say what they think. We began endorsing American presidential candidates in 1980, when we backed Ronald Reagan, and since then have backed both Democrats and Republicans. We assess politicians not by their party but on their merits.

We do not tell our audience what to think—we know that Economist readers will make up their own minds. But in a world rocked by war, populism, climate change, bitter rivalries and more, explanations are not enough. People face choices, too. Here, clear opinions based on fact have real value—even if you disagree with them. ■