As the American elections draw near, several European friends have asked me about the practice of endorsements by American newspapers. The question signals a noteworthy difference between the United States and Europe.  I'm neither a journalist nor a journalism professor, but I'll try to answer it.

In the United States, the press has long adhered to an idea(l) of objectivity. Most newspapers make a sincere effort to present the news without partisanship. (Radio and television has run against the grain and increasingly takes a partisan tone, but even their journalists probably turn to print media for hard news.)

There is one, great exception to this objective, nonpartisan stance: elections. Almost all newspapers in the United States endorse candidates. The endorsements in the presidential contest attract the most attention, but papers also endorse candidates running for governor, senator, representative, mayor, or ballot initiatives.

As a rule, endorsements are reasoned showings of support. The paper does not merely proclaim support, like a badge or advertisement, but offers readers justification for its choice. Usually the endorsement explains why the editors' preferred candidate is best suited for the job. Sometimes endorsements (also) review the alleged flaws that work against the other candidate. Endorsements often try to find some words of praise for both candidates. (In general elections in the United States, there are usually two serious contenders for office: one democratic, and one republican.)

Who writes the endorsement? It is the work of the paper's editorial board. As a rule, endorsements are collective works, signed by "The Editors" even if actually written by a single person.