Share

Nothing quite rivals the fascinating and fraught newsroom debates around editorial endorsements, the long-standing tradition of newspapers to pick a side in an election or leadership race.

Why do it? At the very least, why offend a good chunk of our loyal readers?

We do it because newspapers remain opinion leaders and many people want to know where we stand. And because our reasoned positions should help readers come to their own conclusions.

There is no secret process to an endorsement. The editorial board expresses opinions on issues of the day, but operates independently of the reporters and editors who cover the news. The six members try to meet with every serious candidate and ask each about a range of issues. All of those conversations are on the record and often on video.

We then debate the choices and try to come to a consensus, although it sometimes requires me and our editorial page editor John Geiger to break a deadlock. It's not a matter of personal fancy. We aim for intellectual consistency over a long period of time and an adherence to Globe values, which are often cited as centre-right (although almost daily I receive e-mails labelling me either a Liberal hack or a right-wing fanatic).

Once a choice is made, John and I then discuss the structure, tone and content of the editorial, before he puts the finishing touches on it. And finally, usually the day before publication, I send a copy to our publisher, out of courtesy. It is not a requirement, and he has never asked, respecting the independence of the editor's office. If he has disagreed with a position, he has not said so.

In my time as editor since 2009, we have taken the following positions:

Clear support for Stephen Harper's Conservatives in 2011

Even though Mr. Harper refused to visit The Globe, and his media attack dogs tried to discredit several of our journalists, we felt he was the superior choice for what was obviously going to be a difficult term. In contrast, both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton spent a significant amount of time with our board, explaining themselves and their positions. Both were charming and thoughtful, but in our view the lesser choices. Much of the country, and many loyal Liberal readers, were enraged. The minute our editorial was posted online, I received a screaming e-mail from a contact, who said she was cancelling her subscription after 25 years. At a dinner the next evening, two very senior public servants filled my ear with criticisms of the Harper government, clearly annoyed by what we had written. Many in our newsroom were also displeased. On our website, some 60,000 readers joined or followed a conversation with Mr. Geiger. That's the joy of a democracy and a free press.

Muted support for George Smitherman for mayor of Toronto

After our board met with Rob Ford for more than an hour, we were sure he was not right for the job. We liked a lot of Mr. Ford's policy ideas and agreed the city (and its unions) needed much better management. But tellingly, Mr. Ford's brother Doug answered many of the questions we posed to the candidate. Now in office, the mayor has not been able to provide the leadership the city needs. On the other hand, Mr. Smitherman was a problematic choice, given his hotheadedness and his questionable track record in big-spending departments. But he was, in our view, the best choice on offer.

Support for Alison Redford's Progressive Conservatives in Alberta in 2012

While the province was going to face tougher times and needed better fiscal management, we felt the Wildrose option was too radical. We also hoped Ms. Redford would bring better provincial leadership to the confederation.

A "throw your hands up" view of Quebec last year

Jean Charest's Liberals had run out of gas and credibility, and the Charbonneau commission threatened to cause more damage. The Parti Québécois is anathema to Canada's National Newspaper. And the Coalition Avenir Québec, while brimming with attractive ideas, was too fresh for power. Rather than endorse, we hoped for a CAQ-Liberal solution.

This week, we voiced our support for Ontario Liberal leadership candidate Sandra Pupatello. We had already spent an hour with her chief rival, Kathleen Wynne, the self-styled social-justice candidate, but felt she was too committed to government intervention in all manner of affairs. Ms. Pupatello's ideas are much closer to The Globe's classical liberal traditions: A modest but effective state, innovative social policies (i.e., not self-perpetuating and not discouraging private innovation), light regulatory support for a free market, and liberty for all. If she wins, she will have an extremely tough road ahead,which is where character also matters. She has that.

You can follow our Ontario leadership coverage online all weekend. We have a team of reporters, columnists and visual journalists at the Toronto convention and we aim to provide up-to-the-minute results and introduce the next Ontario premier to our digital readers.

It has been a week of reflection and anticipation, nowhere more so than through the U.S. presidential inauguration. That event inspired this great retrospective video by foreign-affairs specialist Affan Chowdhry.

Whatever you are reflecting on or anticipating, I hope your weekend is worthwhile.