What influence does a front-page editorial in The New York Times have on public opinion? A strong negative influence, judging from the only two examples from the last 95 years. The Times famously ran a front-page editorial Dec. 4 calling for drastic gun control measures, including confiscation of weapons. The response: No. The latest CBS/New York Times poll reports that 50 percent oppose “a nationwide ban on assault weapons,” while only 44 percent support it.
That’s a sharp reversal of trend: In January 2011, 63 percent supported the ban on “assault weapons” — a vague term that invites agreement, even though any gun, even a toy pistol, can be used to assault someone (consult your law dictionary) and the 1990s legislation banning “assault weapons” distinguished them from other guns by purely cosmetic criteria.
The Times’ second-most recent front-page editorial, published in June 1920, had a similar effect. It criticized the Republican National Conventions’ nomination of Warren G. Harding as that of “a candidate whose nomination will be received with astonishment and dismay by the party whose suffrages he invites.” Voters took a different view that fall.
The ticket of Harding and Calvin Coolidge beat the Democratic ticket of James M. Cox and Franklin D. Roosevelt by a popular vote margin of 60-34 percent — the largest percentage margin in history for either party. Closer to Times Square, Harding carried New York state by a 65-27 percent margin. He also did something no Republican candidate has done since and which probably none will do again any time soon: He carried all five boroughs of New York City — Manhattan 59-29, The Bronx 57-24, Brooklyn 63-26, Queens 69-26 and Staten Island 63-33.
Given the apparent negative impact of the Times’ front-page editorials, the editors might well be advised not to schedule the next one for another 95 years, to some time in 2110 or 2111.
