5 ms·

Because newspaper endorsement used to have more weight. I am not sure it has ever been measured scientifically but it was at least perceived as having some weig

by seren 10y ago

Because newspaper endorsement used to have more weight. I am not sure it has ever been measured scientifically but it was at least perceived as having some weight. Now today, we realize that it has no effect on the average voter. This is a shocking realization if your are a journalist working for a newspaper. It is a "Emperor's New Clothes" moment. For the rest of us, I would say this has less an impact.

gregpilling 10y ago
The average voter does not read newspapers. This is obvious from the decline in circulation, not necessarily the election result.
- DamnYuppie 10y ago
  Declining circulation doesn't mean they aren't reading them online.
  - hga 10y ago
    Or that the people who read them don't have an above average influence on others who look to them for a more informed take on current events and the like.
  - TAForObvReasons 10y ago
    I'd point to the uptick in online sources like InfoWars and Breitbart and Drudge as a sign of where people are getting their news. It's rare to see any of them link to more traditional outlets.
    - hga 10y ago
      It's rare to see any of them link to more traditional outlets. Which suggests you don't read either of the latter, for they do that all the time. Just go to Drudge right now and see the links at the top left to the NYT, LA Times, the U.K. Metro which I just learned about yesterday as an example of the MSM over there (haven't looked at it yet), The Hill (founded 1994 and pretty "traditional" nowadays), CNET (founded in 1994 as well), the Daily Mail, and ABC and CBS News. This is Drudge's daily bread and butter. And for now, just take my word for it that Breitbart not only publishes a lot of AP, AFP etc. new wire stories straight, a lot of their items are short sections of traditional outlets with some commentary, links to them and encouragement to read the whole thing.
colmvp 10y ago
Eh. I think you don't even need to read the endorsements to understand that the NYTimes and WaPo were both heavily pro-Clinton. Chances are if you were anti-Clinton, you'd be reading their articles throughout the election with a grain of salt. The funny thing is once the election was over, suddenly a slew of articles came from WaPo talking about how Bernie may have had gotten short changed from the primaries and how they may have affected the election, be it preventing him from facing Trump or dividing the Democratic voter base. Like, only NOW does this newspapers care about Bernie. A lot of supporters for Sanders won't forget the treatment he got from the Washington Post. Plus, in the case of Trump, his anti-establishment rhetoric may have meant it worked in his favor to not get endorsements from the media elite.
- hackuser 10y ago
  The editorial page of the NY Times was heavily pro-Clinton (and anti-Trump). The news side was just straight-ahead, aggressive journalism, IMHO. As examples, they broke the story about Clinton's email server, which arguably was the biggest blow to her campaign, and had continual reports from the Wikileaks/Russian DNC release. (I thought reporting the latter was over-aggressive. It was anonymous, uncorroborated data from arguably the most dubious possible source, Russian intelligence.)
  - mtbcoder 10y ago
    In traditional news organizations, editorial boards and newsrooms operate independently of each other and it's unfortunate when high quality reporting is too often dismissed with a quick "meh, it's a liberal|conservative rag that can't be trusted." The "editorialization" by the modern blog-o-sphere has wrecked havoc on the landscape and sewed the seeds of distrust. I don't think there is any doubt of that.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I couldn't agree more. Also: * Fox News and other Fox/Murdoch publications world wide claim to be traditional news organizations, but really are editorializing. Ironically, this undermines the reputation of real news organizations - people assume they do the same. * Many on the right now value ideology over fact. Information that fits the ideology is accepted; inconvenient fact is not. Climate change, Obama's citizenship (doubted by 40% of Republicans, IIRC), and Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD are simple examples. * The demonization of any information that doesn't fit the ideology has resulted in the right continually demonizing real news organizations, who report based on fact and not ideology. I'm not writing that to be partisan. There is a critical problem on the right that is destroying society, democracy and civilization, and an attitude that they are not stewards of those things - as if there is no consequence. If it was happening also on the left then I'd say the same, but it's not.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Because newspaper endorsement used to have more weight. Newspapers also used to be local organs, owned by the local upper class, staffed with the local working class, covering news that people could check against their lived experience. Nowadays newspapers are heavily nationalized and internationalized, owned by media conglomerates, and staffed with the kind of upper-class white-collar professionals who could afford many years of unpaid internships before getting a paid job. The information printed may even be veridical, but it's often not checkably veridical, so it gets down-weighted and mixed in with all the other uncheckable shit you read on the internet.

by seren 10y ago

gregpilling 10y ago

The average voter does not read newspapers. This is obvious from the decline in circulation, not necessarily the election result.

DamnYuppie 10y ago
Declining circulation doesn't mean they aren't reading them online.
- hga 10y ago
  Or that the people who read them don't have an above average influence on others who look to them for a more informed take on current events and the like.
- TAForObvReasons 10y ago
  I'd point to the uptick in online sources like InfoWars and Breitbart and Drudge as a sign of where people are getting their news. It's rare to see any of them link to more traditional outlets.
  - hga 10y ago
    It's rare to see any of them link to more traditional outlets. Which suggests you don't read either of the latter, for they do that all the time. Just go to Drudge right now and see the links at the top left to the NYT, LA Times, the U.K. Metro which I just learned about yesterday as an example of the MSM over there (haven't looked at it yet), The Hill (founded 1994 and pretty "traditional" nowadays), CNET (founded in 1994 as well), the Daily Mail, and ABC and CBS News. This is Drudge's daily bread and butter. And for now, just take my word for it that Breitbart not only publishes a lot of AP, AFP etc. new wire stories straight, a lot of their items are short sections of traditional outlets with some commentary, links to them and encouragement to read the whole thing.

colmvp 10y ago

Eh. I think you don't even need to read the endorsements to understand that the NYTimes and WaPo were both heavily pro-Clinton. Chances are if you were anti-Clinton, you'd be reading their articles throughout the election with a grain of salt. The funny thing is once the election was over, suddenly a slew of articles came from WaPo talking about how Bernie may have had gotten short changed from the primaries and how they may have affected the election, be it preventing him from facing Trump or dividing the Democratic voter base. Like, only NOW does this newspapers care about Bernie. A lot of supporters for Sanders won't forget the treatment he got from the Washington Post. Plus, in the case of Trump, his anti-establishment rhetoric may have meant it worked in his favor to not get endorsements from the media elite.

hackuser 10y ago
The editorial page of the NY Times was heavily pro-Clinton (and anti-Trump). The news side was just straight-ahead, aggressive journalism, IMHO. As examples, they broke the story about Clinton's email server, which arguably was the biggest blow to her campaign, and had continual reports from the Wikileaks/Russian DNC release. (I thought reporting the latter was over-aggressive. It was anonymous, uncorroborated data from arguably the most dubious possible source, Russian intelligence.)
- mtbcoder 10y ago
  In traditional news organizations, editorial boards and newsrooms operate independently of each other and it's unfortunate when high quality reporting is too often dismissed with a quick "meh, it's a liberal|conservative rag that can't be trusted." The "editorialization" by the modern blog-o-sphere has wrecked havoc on the landscape and sewed the seeds of distrust. I don't think there is any doubt of that.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I couldn't agree more. Also: * Fox News and other Fox/Murdoch publications world wide claim to be traditional news organizations, but really are editorializing. Ironically, this undermines the reputation of real news organizations - people assume they do the same. * Many on the right now value ideology over fact. Information that fits the ideology is accepted; inconvenient fact is not. Climate change, Obama's citizenship (doubted by 40% of Republicans, IIRC), and Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD are simple examples. * The demonization of any information that doesn't fit the ideology has resulted in the right continually demonizing real news organizations, who report based on fact and not ideology. I'm not writing that to be partisan. There is a critical problem on the right that is destroying society, democracy and civilization, and an attitude that they are not stewards of those things - as if there is no consequence. If it was happening also on the left then I'd say the same, but it's not.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>Because newspaper endorsement used to have more weight. Newspapers also used to be local organs, owned by the local upper class, staffed with the local working class, covering news that people could check against their lived experience. Nowadays newspapers are heavily nationalized and internationalized, owned by media conglomerates, and staffed with the kind of upper-class white-collar professionals who could afford many years of unpaid internships before getting a paid job. The information printed may even be veridical, but it's often not checkably veridical, so it gets down-weighted and mixed in with all the other uncheckable shit you read on the internet.