For papers without local ownership, the publisher is the delegate of outside owners. Few outside owners in Alabama impose their views directly, though that does happen in some places, and is clearly the right of the owner.

Papers owned by outside entities usually try to maintain consistent voices, but may drift over time. For example, the Advertiser has always been Democratic, but while it once was the mouthpiece for a conservative Democratic philosophy favored by white elites of the Black Belt, it has become more liberal as the state party has moved left and as the Big Mule coalition has vaporized.

Huntsville has among the least distinctive editorial voices in the state. Its editorial page is middle of the road, which makes it less surprising that it would punt. Non-endorsements sometimes reflect deep internal divisions at a paper between publisher and editorial writers.

If newspapers emphasized transparency within their own organizations and products (as they do with government and business), readers might trust them more.

Newspapers have had a long history of giving informed opinions on bills, laws, policies, programs, elected officials, business, etc. Why shouldn’t they have a say in the most powerful office in the land?

I don’t think newspapers necessarily claim to be impartial or unbiased, just that they try hard to be fair.

That being said, the Birmingham News’ endorsement of McCain seems less like a hearty salute and more of a rebuke of Obama’s platform.

And the Huntsville Times chickened out, using an emphasis on “state and local issues” as its excuse. The editorial board could have easily recommended either McCain or Obama based on the candidates’ stances on issues critical to that city: space exploration, science and math education, and technology.