EDITORIAL: The Huntingtonian endorses Mitt Romney for president 27

By Huntingtonian Editorial Staff

We do not believe the U.S. can afford four more years under President Barack Obama.

In the past four years we have added $5 trillion to the deficit, according to the Orlando Sentinel. Annual deficits for every year of the Obama presidency will top $1 trillion, pushing the federal debt to $16 trillion.

The economy was in poor shape when Obama took office. But the expectation was not that there would be a complete revival in four years, but that it would be better in four years. This is not the case. Although he exhausted his political capital on new government programs, unemployment has remained above 8 percent for 43 consecutive months, according to the Dallas Morning News.

For these reasons, we endorse Mitt Romney for president.

Romney’s five-point plan shows that he understands fixing the economy is paramount to other issues and has a clear plan that could be implimented. As college students not far away from entering the disaster-zone that is the economy, we need the economy to improve if we want any hope of finding a job with the education we are receiving.

His plans for tax reforms, which shift focus from the government to an innovated private sector, as well as his proposed reforms to a crumbling Medicare system, are both encouraging.

Obama’s support of the Health and Human Services contraception mandate is also cause for alarm. The federal mandate requires religiously-affiliated organizations to provide contraceptives, including the morning-after pill, to their employees.This mandate led to many religious liberty lawsuits filed by Christian and Catholic hospitals, charities and universities. Wheaton College in Illinois was one of them.

“This is a matter of religious principle, which it is unconstitutional for the government to force us to violate,” a statement on Wheaton’s website said. “The mandate allows the government to declare that we are not entitled to First Amendment protection for our freedom of religion — a dangerous precedent.”

Romney is not a perfect candidate, and voters should demand more details on both his tax plans and his stance on immigration. But he is a practical, principled leader with business success, and that is a step in the right direction.

The Huntingtonian editorial is written by the editorial staff: Jessi Emmert, Brad Barber, Josh Lanphier, Jared Huhta, Rachel Batdorff, Laura Good, Sara Marshall and Alex Hoffman. It reflects the viewpoint of the editors only, and does not represent the viewpoint of Huntington University. To respond to the editorial, comment on it below, or send us an email.

The Huntingtonian Editors. Top row, left to right: Alex Hoffman, Brad Barber, Jared Huhta, Josh Lanphier. Bottom row, left to right: Laura Good, Sara Marshall, Jessi Emmert, Rachel Batdorff. (Photo by Mike Ayers)

27 thoughts on “EDITORIAL: The Huntingtonian endorses Mitt Romney for president

  1. Reply Shick Oct 28,2012 2:45 am

    [MODERATOR’S NOTE: Feel free to delete the poorly formatted version of this comment directly above]


    I am of course aware that other news agencies (not limited to just other newspapers) endorse political candidates upon occasion. Being in a nation that cherishes its free press greatly, you’re certainly correct when you state:

    they are well, well within their journalistic rights to publish this article

    I never denied that fact. Rather, I assert that a journalist’s rights are much less limited than a journalist’s civic responsibilities.

    If you take another look at my statements as you have quoted them…

    you believe this article is a ‘journalistic travesty’ that ‘clearly crosses an important line’ and shows that the editors ‘lack journalistic integrity’

    …you’ll probably see what I mean. I didn’t claim others don’t cross this line on a daily basis, but rather I grieve the fact that they do. Yes, oftentimes I question the journalistic integrity of these other editors too. Call me an idealist, but just because crossing this line is (as you put it) “a long-standing journalistic tradition” doesn’t excuse it from being irresponsible journalism.

    Also, returning to my original comment as posted, I alluded to crossing a line several paragraphs before I used the label “journalistic travesty.” Your comment is right to conclude these two phrases were partially linked, but do note that I referred to several additional details contributing the “travesty” in those other paragraphs:

    these lists are, by their nature, one-sided

    failure to mention any of the other 150 officially recognized candidates, not to mention some potentially key moral flaws in the endorsed candidate

    The broader picture aside, I find two specifics disturbing here[…]


    I feel the other comments here (yours included) either back directly or concede many of those points.

  2. Reply Anonymous Oct 28,2012 12:33 pm

    Sure, I hear what you are saying, Shick.

    Call it whatever you want, ‘civic responsibility’ or ‘journalist’s right,’ we still fundamentally disagree on the same point — I don’t think publishing an editorial endorsing a candidate on behalf of an entire news organization compromises the organization’s journalistic integrity and you think it does.

    For decades, the industry standard has been that publishing such editorials is an acceptable practice for a newspaper/news organization, as evidenced by the fact that major U.S. papers have been doing it consistently for years.

    For most newspapers, it’s also an industry standard to use AP Style. Newspapers follow arbitrary rules: use OK instead of okay, cut serial commas, abbreviate Indiana as Ind., not IN.

    Does the Huntingtonian have to follow AP Style? No. Does following AP Style give the Huntingtonian an extra level of legitimacy because it brings them in sync with the rest of the industry? Yes.

    If you want to attack the standard itself, fine. Perhaps papers everywhere are being irresponsible when they publish opinion pieces endorsing one candidate. Maybe the NYTimes has been completely wrong since 1860. Maybe readers can’t tell the difference between an opinion piece and regular reporting. Maybe editorials taint future political coverage. Okay, argue away.

    But don’t attack the Huntingtonian or the Huntingtonian staff for doing their best to follow an established industry standard. It builds their credibility as a news organization and helps the staff prepare for the professional world, where nearly all serious news organizations follow industry standards.

    The staff doesn’t get to chose which standards to follow and which to ignore. They can’t use AP Style one day and toss it out the door the next. If they did that, the paper would lose credibility. Either they’re striving to follow industry standards as best they can or they’re doing their own thing at a small college in the middle of nowhere Indiana.

    Industry standards are certainly not infallible. But when thousands of news organizations across the nation agree on something — like candidate endorsements — that’s the best guideline for the Huntingtonian to follow.

  3. Reply Shelly Bradbury Oct 28,2012 12:34 pm

    Sorry, forgot my name on the above comment!

  4. Reply Shick Oct 28,2012 4:28 pm

    I hope I already made it clear above that I have supported the Huntingtonian and its editors 99.9% of the time. It is in fact this single piece (and, as you point out, the standard it represents) with which I am taking issue.

  5. Reply Kris Burgess Oct 28,2012 9:37 pm

    Shelly, you say:

    “But don’t attack the Huntingtonian or the Huntingtonian staff for doing their best to follow an established industry standard. It builds their credibility as a news organization and helps the staff prepare for the professional world, where nearly all serious news organizations follow industry standards.”

    Also, you mentioned that you would not comment on the quality.

    How can you not comment on the quality and yet say that the editorial staff “[did] their best to follow an established industry standard.”

    I concede, I had no idea papers endorsed candidates like this, but the effort here is… completely lacking. Anyone who knows what true analysis looks like should know that.

    I would respect a good faith effort of analysis, but this quality does not reflect the capability of these editors.

  6. Reply Shelly Bradbury Oct 29,2012 10:46 am

    True true, I did make a quality judgement there.

    I hereby officially take back the phrase ‘doing their best’ and replace it with ‘making an effort.’

  7. Reply Chris Hirschy Nov 2,2012 3:05 am

    I have not read all of the comments on this article in their entirety. To be honest, I have not even read this article in its entirety. There is no need. The entire message of this article is explained in the title–Staff Editorial: Our Opinion – The Huntingtonian endorses Mitt Romney for president. I have not been a faithful reader of The Huntingtonian during my four years here but I have started to make an effort to be aware of what is going on around campus. I view this as practice in informing myself on the world around me because, in the future, I see value in being well informed. In the same way, I view the Huntingtonian has practice for young, aspiring Journalism majors to practice their skills before graduating and taking their first, full-time journalism positions. In this, I think the editorial staff’s choice to endorse a presidential candidate was poor practice at doing journalism. Just before seeing the above headline for the first time I read Jessi Emmert’s editorial on why The Huntingtonian chose to run the Arizona story before the school’s official announcement. I applauded Jessi and her staff’s choice to practice journalism well by posting that story. However, I was extreme disappointed to see the poor judgment made by the editorial staff in the article directly bellow it.

    In response to Jessi’s defense, which was also a poor practice of Journalism, regardless of the staff’s decision they do not need to defend themselves, it is not okay for a university paper to endorse a presidential candidate. Citing two other university paper’s that have done so does not justify endorsing a candidate. I’m sure we can all think of a nice little story that demonstrates the problems with this argument so I see no need to say anything further.

    Overall, I enjoy the Huntingtonian but I was disappointed to see them show favor and opinion, even in the opinion section, on such a big and controversial topic. I hope to see better discernment in the future. After all, this is practice! Keep working hard!

Leave a Reply




× two = 12