Not for nothing is "compare and contrast" the quintessential exam question, which many will remember from their studies of literature, the social sciences and the earth sciences.
Armed with this important information of where things rank and fit in, be it world-shattering or ever-so-trivial, we can stride out more confidently beyond our front doors with stronger conviction in what we believe in.
Another part of human nature is to want to share our findings with others, to convince them of the rightness or appropriateness of what we believe in, to persuade them that perhaps their closest-held views might not be the most robust.
However, one must always be careful. In any nation where people have a right to their own opinions, there is always a risk such cajoling can come across as swaggering arrogance.
Endorsement, then, is all around us. The marketing and advertising industries are built on it, encouraging us to try a new type of toothpaste or drive off in the latest hybrid vehicle.
The aptness of endorsement becomes more vital in cases where an influential organisation wants to add its stamp of approval to someone or something which is going to affect the lives of many people.
This has been thrown into stark relief in recent days in the United States, where the eminent newspapers the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have turned their backs on the habit of their recent lifetimes of endorsing a presidential candidate to help guide their audiences as the election looms closer.
While presidential and prime ministerial endorsements by media organisations are part and parcel of the election scene in the US and the United Kingdom, in New Zealand, overt media support for a specific party or candidate is rare. That could be because, with a much smaller population, the chances of upsetting someone in the next government who you might have to work with are higher.
However, respectable, long-standing media companies, their newspapers and websites, such as the Otago Daily Times, will sometimes go into bat on behalf of their communities over certain issues. Such campaigns or editorial projects can sometimes extend beyond the usual, recognised territory for reporting, of balance, fairness and objectivity.
This can of course become somewhat problematic if, for some reason, it is not clear what is being done or what the campaigning is meant to achieve. Without proper labelling or being promoted correctly, this can confuse some readers, unsure of whether this is impartial reporting or something more opinionated, such as an analysis or comment piece, or today’s editorial.
The ODT has proudly campaigned for its readers on crucial issues over the years and will continue to do so. The heft of a large masthead and news website means we can more strongly put our community’s needs in front of decision makers than individuals are able to. We did it with the neurosurgery campaign in 2010 and we will carry on editorially supporting the building of a new Dunedin hospital as originally planned.
Unfortunately, with their lily-livered prevarications, Washington Post and LA Times owners Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong have let their readers down, their staff down, damaged the reputation of their titles and besmirched American journalism.
The great irony, though, is it only requires a small amount of reading about what went on behind the scenes at both papers to understand that their decisions not to endorse either Mr Trump or Kamala Harris provide the most compelling argument for why independent journalism is increasingly important.
