Well, they are - to the papers themselves, that is, particularly if they're changing horses. The Guardian moving from Labour to the Liberals is more newsworthy than the Telegraph declaring for the Conservatives again. And papers like to be news as well as write it.
Which, no doubt, helps to explain the former's endorsement of Nick Clegg's party - the Observer has also come out for it today - as well as the Times' of David Cameron's.
Cynics will grumble that in the latter case Murdoch's view was the decisive factor. But Murdoch himself has never been an enthusiast for Cameron, and in any event allows the Times a lot of leeway. A sense of which way the wind's blowing is a more likely explanation, at least in part.
But the notion that such endorsements count is mistaken. Sure, the Guardian and Observer editorials are likely to send more nokias flying in Downing Street, and carpets there will cower in anticipation of being chewed. Nonetheless, those leading articles - like this post - are here today, gone tomorrow.
What matters at elections isn't a paper's editorials. It's the totality of a paper's coverage during the previous Parliament: what stories are investigated; which ones are covered, and how; how much space they command; for how long they run; what analysis and comment goes with them.
And even then, this totality may not matter. "It's the Sun wot won it", that paper crowed after the 1992 election. (On polling day, its front page portrayed Neil Kinnock's head as a light bulb, accompanied by a headline reading: "If Kinnock wins today will the last person in Britain please turn off the lights".)
The Sun's coverage of Labour had been unwaveringly hostile. But its boast has been disputed by claims about cause and effect: did the Sun's view lead the voters, or the voters' view lead the Sun? Certainly, it was no longer backing the Tories by 1997, or even John Major by 1995. (It summed up that year's Conservative leadership election as "Redwood versus Deadwood".)
In any event, the papers don't always, or even usually, get their own way. The Mail was unambiguously opposed to Labour by 2005. But even Paul Dacre's big guns couldn't stop Tony Blair's bandwagon that year. We had no better luck on the Telegraph when I there in 1997.
Furthermore, power's seeping away from the papers. Not as much as some tend to claim: for example, consider how the Telegraph was able to utilise the expansive space and distinctive accessibility of newsprint during the expenses scandal. But visibly and unmistakably to...well, to Left Foot Forward and Guido Fawkes and Harry's Place and, yes, even this site.
For a while, newsprint and the net will work antiphonally, responding to each other's work. After that, who knows? But in the meantime, as before, Fleet Street endorsements at election time aren't worth yesterday's fish and chip paper.
Paul Goodman
