The Chicago Sun-Times announced this week that after seven decades, it will discontinue endorsements of candidates because, well, the whole thing is a bit silly.

The editors have some good arguments: in the age of the Internet, we know more about candidates and their back stories than ever. A newspaper does not need to tell us. From endless analysis on television, we know more about a politician’s positions that we could probably write a PowerPoint comparison. What good does a paper do at this point?

Also, the editors concede, endorsements promote (rightly or wrongly) the idea that bias exists in the media. Henceforth, no more endorsements.

There are at least two other things that remain unsaid.

First, bias exists no matter what. This is hard-wired into human nature—a truly unbiased news story would be unreadable, as it would list nothing more than a collection of random facts arranged in loose chronilogical order. Writers pick specific words and phrases, editors theoretically take out information unimportant to the overall story, the copy editors elect where in the paper the story winds up, and the reader elects to read them or not. These are all decisions formed by preference, and preference is bias. The editors are fooling themselves if they thing the elimination of endorsement practices now corrects the appearance of bias. The bias remains everywhere else.

Second, the Czar cannot help but feel a little sinister about this. What if a newspaper was placed in an untenable position? For example, let us say that the newspaper editors know full well that their readership prefers a certain candidate to be endorsed, but the reality is that the candidate, an incumbent, has done such a pathetic job that there is nothing they can write to justify the endorsement?

What do you do? Do you whip up some high-level fluff about hope and change or something? No, because that regurgitates the pablum from an earlier endorsement. Do you list his accomplishments? But that risks a ridiculously brief sentence. Maybe two, if we are charitable. Do we do the honorable thing and endorse the opposition, even though they have not come close to settling on a specific candidate yet? Of course, then you will likely be accused of racism, if that original candidate were not a white male. Or even if the opposition ran a black male.

Or do we just announce that endorsements are a bad idea and completely wiggle out of it forever?

We just wonder.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.