Questionnaires were sent to 114 of the 228 editorial page editors at newspapers in the United States with daily circulations greater than 50,000 for a study that compared (1) the editor-publisher relationship existing at chains to that found at independent papers, and (2) the 1984 presidential endorsements made by chains to those by independent papers. The questionnaire contained 22 questions, 9 of which dealt with issues on which the 1984 Republican and Democratic platforms or candidates had taken opposing positions. The issues included ones that were social (abortion, ERA, school prayer, tuition tax credits); economic (tax increase); foreign policy related (aid to rebels in Nicaragua, limiting U.S. covert activity abroad); environmental (abolishing the Department of Energy); and and defense-related (space-based defense system). The remaining questions sought information about the respondents' newspaper, the process the paper followed in making an endorsement, the political leanings of the publisher and editorial page editor, and the paper's endorsement and editorial page editor's vote in the 1984 presidential race. Of the 85 editorial page editors responding, close to 58% worked for chained-owned papers. The results indicated more similarities than differences between the editorial page editors at chain and independent papers, with editors at both types of papers voting for Mondale by a wide margin. The differences that were found occurred in a paper's endorsements. The chain-owned newspapers were more likely to endorse the candidate leading in the polls, and within a chain, papers had a strong tendency to endorse the same candidate. Although editors claimed they had strong voice in determining whom their paper endorsed, little evidence was found to support their contention. (HOD)