And I don't think that such a board should speak on behalf of the entire newspaper by endorsing a candidate. Individuals can write their own editorials, but I think a full-on newspaper backed endorsement is too far. I could dig into more specific examples, and I wasn't necessarily referring to those specific articles, but my general point was that there are different slants and blind spots being reported on.
How is this any different than various Unions endorsing one candidate or another? I'm sure not every single person in a union is going to vote for whichever candidate they endorse, but it's a group declaration that a particular candidate more aligns with the general interests and well being of the particular industry they represent. Using this particular election as an example, I don't see why a newspaper SHOULDN'T come out and endorse the candidate that hasn't spent the last 8 years attacking journalists as a whole, openly courting their supporters to at best mistrust verifiable facts being reported about said candidate to at worst inciting literal violence against reporters. One candidate has openly called for limitations to the first amendment and the jailing of journalists who dare to write anything negative about him, and the other has... called out a small group of "journalists" for legitimately mischaracterizing their words. They are not the same.
Newspaper editorial boards have endorsed political candidates for over a century. Reporters should be like Cronkite and just report the news, but acting like newspaper editorial boards are wrong for endorsing candidates is a false equivalence.
well, in order to not push the opposite agenda. This AG is a true ass hat. Missouri re-investigated a death row inmate’s case, and found him to be innocent, the original DA that prosecuted him pushed for his release, and the Supreme Court of MO ordered it. The AG ordered the prison to ignore all of that. Gotta be tough on crime, you know.
The problem is that once it becomes a thing, the absence of it itself becomes taken as an endorsement of some kind. Conservative commentators are already playing this lack-of-Harris-endorsement as if even the "famously lefty" WaPo can't bring themselves to endorse Harris, rather than it being a top down directive from a billionaire owner against the express wishes of the editorial board.
I don't either. An editorial board endorsement is a de facto endorsement for the whole paper given their outsized influence, whether people want to admit or not. What is that getting them or the readers besides a degradation in the trust contract?
Oh please. Conservative commentators are spinning EVERYTHING and making shit up in a delusional manner. It’s not like this is going to move the dial.
This is more of a story than the endorsement. People can focus their hate for billionaires and it’ll probably be more beneficial to Harris than the endorsement.
I mean, isn't that the reason that the Epstein list and the Diddy party list and all that isn't public? Creepy rich folk suppressing info? (Democrats and Republicans) I wish it would all factually be released, and we could arrest, and/ or remove from office, the whole lot of them. There's pictures of Trump grabbing whatever, Harris was dating Willie Brown while he's still married, there's pictures of Laurene Jobs all chummy with Ghislaine Maxwell, there's pictures of this politician or that celebrity. It all seems to mean nothing and have no consequence. The only President to resign in disgrace was Nixon - would he resign today? I feel like today's Nixon would just laugh and say, next question.
Preach. More and more the repercussions of your actions / statements are going away. That needs to stop.
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1849888901151769036 When your brain remembers, mid-sentence, that the guy you endorsed a few months back stumbled into one of the most crippling political scandals in recent memory and you probably shouldn't bring it up.
Trump, Vance phones targeted in Chinese cyber attack congrats, China, you just downloaded a bunch more cp!
If Trump loses, cows will cease to exist. He said so. EDIT: I’m sorry, I didn’t have the entire quote. If he loses, there will be “no more anything.” The entirety of reality will cease to exist.
He only resigned because Republicans made it clear he'd get no pass from them. If it was today's GOP they'd have backed him 100% and voted to acquit.
I got to be voter #666 at the early voting spot by my house today. Apparently between absentee ballots and 1 day of early voting my (very blue) city is already at 29.5% turnout. Feeling cautiously hopeful.