Should newspapers endorse candidates?

      Local elections are coming up next month, and national elections kick into high gear next year.  My local paper, the Houston Chronicle, once again is cranking out its candidate endorsements.  These endorsement articles typically consume nearly all of the space on the editorial pages.

      Occasionally the paper will include an essay explaining how and why it performs the process of selecting who to endorse.   The "why" is something about informing voters and readers about the upcoming elections, and to help them select the "best" candidate for whom to vote.  The "how" part typically explains, in detail, how they form committees, research the candidates, and have all these meetings and discussions to weigh each one's pros and cons and eventually arrive at a very well-thought-out recommendation. 
      What a ridiculous waste of space and other resources.

      Why oh why would a thoughtful and intelligent voter care a rat's posterior what the editorial board at a newspaper thinks is the "best" candidate?  If there really ARE voters out there who depend on newspapers to tell them how to vote, then it just reinforces what I've said for decades:  that the typical average citizen out there is woefully unqualified to choose who should run the government.

      The newspaper attempts to justify its decision based on the fact that they spend far more hours than does the average voter on research and other activities to vet candidates, and besides, being politically literate is their job.  Ok then, for the sake of argument, let us assume that newspaper staff are indeed the best of the best when it comes to choosing politicians.  If that was the case, then why do we bother with this whole messy "voting" thing at all?  Just turn the whole political leadership job over to the newspaper and be done with it.  The fallacy, of course, is that there is nothing inherently superior about people who happen to work for newspapers, and besides, who picks these newspaper moguls? Furthermore, there could be multiple, competing newspapers, so who chooses WHICH newspaper gets all the power?
      But the biggest problem with newspaper endorsements is that, because they're supposed to be neutral, not partisan, they can only address candidates' credentials - not their policies, positions, or philosophy.  If they did adopt a consistent philosophy, or constantly endorsed some specific party, well, that would make them appear biased, and then their news-reporting credibility goes down the drain.
      However, in the final wash, it really is policies and issues that should determine voters' choice.  Credentials are important in the NOMINATING process, but not the general election.  The way the nomination process is supposed to work is that people of the same political party gather and choose, from amongst their ranks, that person who they feel would be the best candidate.  Nominating is supposed to be an INTERNAL thing, where, for example, only bonafide Republicans have a say in choosing the Republican candidate, and only Democrats can select the Democrat, and so on.  Thus, newspapers have absolutely no basis for getting involved or taking a stand on insider party business.
      What about judges?  After all, a judicial candidate's CREDENTIALS, not his/her views or party affiliation, should really be the important factor in voting decisions.  Aren't newspapers, then, a good resource for helping inquiring voters?  No, because first of all, the same reasoning applies:  newspapers do not exist to select candidates, neither judicial, legislative, nor executive. That's not their job, and there's nothing superior about someone just because they are employed by a newspaper. 
      The basic problem with judicial elections is that they SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED in the first place.  Legislators and executives set policy, therefore voters can choose candidates for those offices based on philosophy and issue stances.   But judges are different.  Their job is NOT to set policy, thus their stances, philosophy, and party affiliation are meaningless and irrelevant.  That leaves only credentials - but the average voter has no realistic way to evaluate judicial candidate credentials.  As an alternative, selection of judges should be done by execute and legislative officials, or their appointed boards.
      So, rather than running candidate endorsements, there is a far superior alternative:  the newspaper could simply have each candidate submit their OWN endorsements.  Call it the "Why you should vote for me" essay.  The paper gives each candidate a length limit, and then publishes ALL of them.  (If a candidate fails to submit an essay, then the paper should so say.)  That way, the voters make the call, not the paper.  Then the newspaper is simply fulfilling its role as an information medium, not a political decision-maker.