Endorsed by Caroline: What Was the Times Thinking?

Beginning at about 11PM Saturday night, the big news of the weekend, nearly eclipsing the South Carolina results, was Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's endorsement, in a Sunday New York Times op-ed column, of Barack Obama for President.

Much has been written about why someone who has never before evidenced any particular political proclivity felt the need to declare for a candidate in a primary in a state in which there doesn't seem to be much doubt who is likely to win. Some theorize her recent political conversion may stem from a lifelong search to recapture the dad she never knew or from an antipathy toward the Clintons.

One presumes that the Times has rather strict and narrow criteria for who and what they choose to publish in those scarce column inches left over after their regular columnists have had their say. Especially in editorial "real estate" which is so coveted and especially on a Sunday, which one might consider tantamount to beachfront in East Hampton.

One would also expect that one standard would be that the author has demonstrated some prolonged interest and acquired expertise in the field of the commentary: for example, an academic, a published author, a former government official. To my knowledge, Caroline Kennedy had a brief career as a lawyer, then authored a couple of well-reviewed volumes on privacy and constitutional law, and a collection of her mother's favorite poetry.

So, why does the Times elect to publish a column basically extolling hope for the future as the prescribed elixir for our children? Could it be (gasp!)... a desire for publicity? A certain knowledge that Caroline Kennedy's name -- just like Britney on the cover of US Weekly-- will attract attention, hit the wires, and maybe sell more newspapers or get more eyeballs to the Web? When I looked this morning, her column was the most frequently e-mailed at the moment.

If that's the case, the Times has declined a bit in my estimation. No better, really, than People magazine. I still believe (I know, I know, I'm too old to be this naïve) that the principal function of journalism -- including the editorials and commentary -- is to educate. While I have no beef with Caroline, nor with her electoral choices, I am suspicious of the motives of the Times in publishing her opinions. There are way more qualified "endorsers" and way more educated and involved kids of politicians (if that's what they were after) available. Their last names just aren't "Kennedy."

Comments

[ltfcrazy]

I don't know you personally, but from what I've read of Caroline Kennedy in Time magazine, she seems a much more positive influence in the world than this little attack on her. What's your beef? Because it sounds awfully personal Ruth.

[nsjennette]

I am more interested in Caroline's endorsement than the yahoos on the NYT editorial board.

[Orikinla]

Reading the comments gave me more pleasure than the article.

[ibsteve2u]

Now things are really getting twisted; an endorsement by an American citizen gets its publisher vilified?

I presume that, using the same criteria Ruth uses to criticize the NYT's publishing of CK's endorsement, if the NYT were to publish William Kristol's endorsement of - say - a write-in candidacy for Rush Limbaugh, that would be acceptable and proper due to Kristol's lengthy credentials?

[LongTom]

Mee--owwww! Cat fight!

[SethBLiNK]

Ruth, are you serious? There isn't a newspaper in America that would have turned down that article. I'll bet even the Wall Street Journal would have featured it prominently. Caroline Kennedy has gone out of her way to avoid living a public life and has largely succeeded. When one considers how the press hounded her late mother and brother, you have to know that it takes a lot for her to make such a public stance.

Were she just endorsing Obama or were she addressing policy issues on which she had little familiarity, you might have a point, but the theme of her article is that she felt that for the first time in the 44 years since her father's death, a candidate had come along with the same ability to inspire a nation. She is the most qualified person to write this article because (a) she was JFK's daughter and is the only living member of that first family, and (b) she has stayed out of the political arena all these years, lending credence to the statement that Obama is indeed extraordinary.

There are a lot of aspects of Ms. Kennedy's endorsement that may be subject to debate, but its newsworthiness is certainly not one of them.

[kylie]

Caroline Kennedy reflects many Democrats like myself who just are not inspired by the seedy "campaign tactics" Hillary is using to make the DNC happy.

She has been a divisive and polarizing figure-she will not generate voters to come out and vote-Obama will.

Too many of us have grown tired of the Rove-Bush political scams, and want a breath of fresh air and yes, hope! How terrible.

Cynnical Americans badly want a change in our country but, the change that offers new faces and new ideas.(Not compromised candidates-Hillary's association with Murdoch and her huge group of lobbyists sealed the deal)!

Caroline represents me and lots of my friends who already voted Obama!

[kylie]

Hmm. Maybe, Democrats feel like Hillary is being pushed down their throats.

It is Obama that has the charisma and will be a candidate for real change!

The Florida results are seamy-looking. "Voting machines not working in largely Democratic areas".

Sounds like the GOP put in the word to the "boys" in Florida, again. Nightmares of times past resulting in stale/recycled candidates "winning". What a sham!

[chappelforpres]

Ruth, you need to focus on legitimate issues with the Times, such as, who invited Bill Kristol to the party?

Now here's a journalistic standard that begs the question.

[SkimaskBob]

Dear Ruth,.
In this post you say, "One would also expect that one standard would be that the author has demonstrated some prolonged interest and acquired expertise in the field of the commentary: for example, an academic, a published author, a former government official.".
The following are some quick facts I discovered about Caroline Kennedy after spending 5 MINUTES on the internet:
- graduated Harvard University, Columbia Law School
- worked for Ted Kennedy and The New York Daily News
- founded Profiles in Courage Award (see numerous other comments for description)
- director of the Commission on Presidential Debates
- director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
- co-wrote 2 books, In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action (1990) and The Right to Privacy (1995)
- edited 4 New York Times Best Sellers.
An Academic - check.
A Published Author - check.
An Involved, Informed, and Influential member of society ... CHECK..
And just for fun, here is the link if found all of this on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy

Sincerely,

-Informed Internet User

[KevinQ]

Ruth,
Attack JFK's only remaining child as unworthy to have an article in the New York Times because she did not endorse Hillary? Would you happen to be a part of NY NOW? Do you know how everyone out of the Hillary Extremism bubble view this and the other attacks flying from the Clinton campaign?
As a side note, as someone who supports Obama, you and others like you, sure do make it alot easier to convince people not to back Hillary Clinton. For that I applaud your creativity.

[waiguoren]

The comments by this blogger concerning Caroline Kennedy are flat-out absurd.

[selene26]

I'm really sick of women whining about Hillary and those who've decided not to line up like lemmings and crown her queen. If Caroline had endorsed HRC, you'd be praising her to the high heavens. An editorial from the daughter of JFK, a lawyer and author in her own right (whose books are far more substantive than the pablum Hillary put out about villages) is certainly newsworthy on many levels.

[starbright]

Columns like this demonstrate the exact qualities that make people of both sexes hesitate to elect a woman president. A grown woman has chosen to endorse a candidate, and it's not the candidate that you so obviously have chosen. Get. Over. It.

[samguy]

Sore loser part of one!