3 ms·
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-Cli
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIn 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 agoI 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.
- skybrian 10y agoThe surprising thing isn't that the NY Times's endorsement didn't matter, but that the endorsements of conservative newspapers didn't matter. Many of them came out against Trump too.