As the 2016 presidential election approaches, publications have chosen to endorse certain candidates. Should these news sources exercise their freedom of speech, or does their mission to create “unbiased” content require that they remain neutral in this – or in any – election? Personally, I support the latter.

One notable example is The New York Times’ open endorsement of Hillary Clinton. However, the mission of The New York Times is “to cover the news as impartially as possible and treat readers, news sources and others fairly and openly, and be seen to be doing so.” While I am no fan of Donald Trump, I believe that they, along with all publications endorsing certain candidates, should stay unbiased in their news reporting.

In this controversial presidential race, I find it crucial for people to look beyond the headlines and delve deeper into the campaigns of both candidates. Endorsing candidates can detract from the reader’s willingness to research the proposed policies of each candidate and instead base their views upon what a news source is presenting. In other words, consumers begin to lose the capability to think for themselves. This election has brought up many issues regarding both candidates, such as Hillary’s email scandal and Donald Trump’s onslaught of defamation of women. A journalist’s audience should be able to look into these issues without external influences.