By Colby Itkowitz

By this time next week America will have voted and while the presidential winner will probably remain a mystery, the campaigning part of the process will cease. Forget the mud slinging and stump speeches and bring on the lawyers to contest what will surely be some unorthodox voting practices – again. The strategists can pack their suitcases, the campaign headquarters across the nation can rip the posters and maps off the walls and newspapers can book flights for their reporters to towns in Florida or Ohio where the races were so tight the campaigns’ lawyers are gearing up for their own second round.

But this is all after Nov. 2.

In the days before the election, the self-described undecideds are still, well, deciding. The candidates continue selling themselves until the final hour. Anything from the Red Sox winning the World Series to explosives missing in Iraq can sway this election. With the campaign this close, traditional newspaper endorsements the week before could tip the scale.

Newspaper endorsements originate from a time period when the general public was considered uneducated, uninformed and incapable of making legitimate political decisions. Throughout the campaign’s often painful entirety, no one pays closer attention than the media. They pounce on every mishap, chew begrudgingly on airplane food following the candidate to four states in three hours and could probably write a campaign-stop article before the speech is given. After months of research and scrupulous attention to detail, it seems there would be no one more appropriate to tell the people who to vote for than the media.

But what about journalism 101 basics – in order to be a credible news source you have to remain objective. You can’t let on that you think America’s democratic process is utterly laughable and that you cringe every time Bush says, “stay the course.” If you did, how could your readers trust you to provide them with a balanced story?

But the week before the election, the fat cats in the editorial room, in the name of their newspaper, endorse a candidate for public office.

On Friday, Newsday endorsed Sen. John Kerry saying he was “a serious man with strong analytical skills. He is the one candidate who can begin to heal the deeply bitter divisions in the nation.” Personally and politically I was thrilled to represent an institution that holds the same beliefs as I do. But this isn’t a 527 interest group. This is a newspaper. And although it is considered an editorial, in effect it speaks for the entire newspaper. It tells sources at the White House that I am writing for a newspaper who does not believe their boss should be the leader of the free world. And that is a conflict of interest.

But this practice isn’t unusual or limited to a few newspapers. It’s a widespread tradition that in the heart of a heated and passionate campaign even The New Yorker magazine made its first political endorsement in its 80-year history, backing Kerry. The editors feel the stakes are too high in this election to not stand up against Bush.

It’s a slippery slope for the media. Its often been contended that the journalists seeking truth and objectivity are secretly part of a liberal society. So far 125 newspapers have endorsed Kerry including at least 35 that endorsed Bush in 2000. Ninety-six newspapers have endorsed Bush. Newspapers admittedly offering a bias in black and white only fuel the suspicions that the media is not a fair news source. With an election this close, its not the job of a newspaper to influence a voter’s decision. Instead, reporters should continue to provide both sides of the story up until and following the election – with full faith that when presented with all the facts people will know the difference between right and wrong and pick the man who will not only do right by America, but also love all Americans.