The Daily Tar Heel
Printing news. Raising hell. Since 1893.
Friday, Dec. 1, 2023 Newsletters Latest print issue

We keep you informed.

Help us keep going. Donate Today.
The Daily Tar Heel

The editorial board of The New York Times recently published its endorsement for the Democratic presidential nomination, as it has done since 1860. This year, though, the Times chose to be remarkably transparent in its endorsement process, publishing explainers, transcripts of the board’s interviews with each candidate, a podcast and a special episode of “The Weekly.”

As a board, we believe it our responsibility to hold elected officials accountable. It’s why we have traditionally chosen to endorse a candidate in UNC’s student body president elections, and why we chose to do the same for Chapel Hill’s municipal elections last November.

Without the public’s trust, the media cannot do its job properly. If the media were a well-oiled machine, trust and legitimacy would be the grease allowing it to run smoothly. But in recent years, the public’s trust in the media has waned, driven in large part by the rhetoric of politicians who maintain a (false) equivalency between bad press and fake news.  

The Times’ decision to publicize its enforcement process reflects its commitment to preserving its reputation as a legitimate, top-tier provider of information. It’s an attempt to render itself immune to criticisms of secrecy and bias, to reject the “failing” moniker it has received from the president and his supporters. 

Of course, there’s still something to be said about a group of relatively privileged individuals thinking they have our best interests at heart, but we digress.

The Times seems to understand something that many papers don’t — that the media’s role is to streamline, rather than monopolize, the decision-making process. As an institution, the media’s primary responsibility is to provide its audience with all the information they need to make an informed decision, without assuming they somehow know what’s best for the rest of us.

It’s exactly what we as a board have tried to do, pairing our endorsements with detailed descriptions of the criteria we used throughout the decision-making process.

We know better than most how difficult it can be to choose from a field of highly-qualified candidates with competing, but equally compelling, plans for the future — which is why we were disappointed to see that the Times’ editorial board chose not to make that ultimate determination and instead endorsed two candidates. 

These decisions, while difficult, are incredibly important. Given the current state of our union, the need to unite behind a single candidate is stronger than ever before.  

In its endorsement, the Times wrote that both the “radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration.” UNC, too, will soon be faced with this decision, and with the race for student body president on the horizon, the Times’ argument is worth considering.

Do we elect a candidate who will advocate tirelessly for students, regardless of the consequences? Or do we support someone who prefers to compromise with University leadership in order to get things done?

Regardless, we commend the Times for their transparency — something we think ought to be the new normal in journalism as well as politics. We intend to follow their example as student body president election season approaches, and hope others do too.

To get the day's news and headlines in your inbox each morning, sign up for our email newsletters.