4 ms·

I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wil

I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision. But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. That's a way different story from deciding to stop doing endorsements.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago
[flagged]
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  I saw that but I'm not sure I see the "long history". From Eisenhower to Carter, then from Carter to now, that's not much of a long history of non-endorsement. The Post is taking a very strong stance here and it will be interesting to see if this stands up in 2028. The LA Times may have left the door open to future endorsements, but not the Post. Better question: Why now? What changed for them? Was it declining revenue/readers, an overhaul of ethics or process? I can't wait to read the tell all some day about these decisions.
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    * 1877 to Eisenhower
    - Molitor5901 2y ago
      Yes, Thank you. Interesting.
- drewbug01 2y ago
  “Had”, not “has”, a long history of not endorsing candidates. They’ve been endorsing since the 80s. The proper framing is “the owners stepped in to change the policy, to mirror the same policies they had before the 80s”. Whether that’s right or wrong to do is a separate question. But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all.
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    > But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all. Of which I didn't do. Granted, 40 years is a long time. But given that the company has had the policy of not endorsing for over two-thirds of its existence, I believe the "undo" framing is accurate.
TMWNN 2y ago
[flagged]
- gatvol 2y ago
  I would argue that endorsement while currently normalised, is not normal.
Molitor5901 2y ago
Another point that just occurred to me: Who is the endorsement supposed to influence? I think in America at least, the national media has become so hyper partisan in the eyes of its readers, that an endorsement of a newspaper is really just preaching to the crowd. What difference does that endorsement really make? At the national level, I don't think it really makes a difference if a newspaper endorses a candidate for President. Those who read and value the opinions of that newspaper are more inclined to vote for the endorsed candidate anyways.
- kcplate 2y ago
  It influences no one, but it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that (now two, LATimes did same thing) normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump.
  - Hasu 2y ago
    > it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump. It's not two media organizations. Both wrote endorsements of Harris. Two self-interested billionaires decided that they and their personal fortunes would be better off if those endorsements were not published. The message this sends to the Democratic party is: suck up to the rich guys if you want power. It's bad for society.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      > suck up to the rich guys if you want power You don’t think this is a recent lesson? Pretty sure every politician already realized this. Since literally forever. Hell, I worked for a company whose wealthy owner had a steady stream of politicians flowing in and out of our offices promising the world for a handout, support, and help. Seemed like every week there was a tour or two for somebody. I have met literally 3 governors, several senators, US reps, state reps, county commissioners, multiple presidential candidates, sheriffs, mayors, wannabes for all and scores of political support staff who excitedly walked in my office while trying to schmooze the old man.
bogantech 2y ago
> But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. He owns the paper, they just work there.
- kcplate 2y ago
  Honestly it’s surprising to me that people really think that the news side of a media company operates with complete autonomy from the business side. They might claim it exists but that’s a fallacy. I worked at a major daily newspaper 30 years ago and I personally know of two cases in my short tenure there where news stories were killed because they didn’t want to piss off important advertisers. I am also aware of a story involving a family member of one of the executives that was let’s say “barely” reported. Other local media organizations interestingly had much more detail than we carried. News has always been and will always be first—a business.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    We didn't give freedom of the press to protect businesses from government scrutiny. We did it to keep free information flowing. There's definitely some very hard and frank questions we need to ask if free information decides to focus on profits over communication.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      The press is free to report on whatever they want. That freedom however is not a mandate that they must report on everything. Newspapers and other media companies have ALWAYS focused on profit. Nothing new there. Plus in this day and age there is literally no restriction on the flow of public accessible information at least in the US. Even when it was tried recently (twitter, FB, YouTube) during the pandemic the public backlash to that attempts at information control was so great that it might literally sway this election.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
transcriptase 2y ago
[flagged]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  you see how incedisive so many people are and sadly realize that yes: an endorsement from a big newspaper can mean a lot.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

[flagged]

Molitor5901 2y ago
I saw that but I'm not sure I see the "long history". From Eisenhower to Carter, then from Carter to now, that's not much of a long history of non-endorsement. The Post is taking a very strong stance here and it will be interesting to see if this stands up in 2028. The LA Times may have left the door open to future endorsements, but not the Post. Better question: Why now? What changed for them? Was it declining revenue/readers, an overhaul of ethics or process? I can't wait to read the tell all some day about these decisions.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  * 1877 to Eisenhower
  - Molitor5901 2y ago
    Yes, Thank you. Interesting.
drewbug01 2y ago
“Had”, not “has”, a long history of not endorsing candidates. They’ve been endorsing since the 80s. The proper framing is “the owners stepped in to change the policy, to mirror the same policies they had before the 80s”. Whether that’s right or wrong to do is a separate question. But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  > But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all. Of which I didn't do. Granted, 40 years is a long time. But given that the company has had the policy of not endorsing for over two-thirds of its existence, I believe the "undo" framing is accurate.

TMWNN 2y ago

[flagged]

gatvol 2y ago
I would argue that endorsement while currently normalised, is not normal.

Molitor5901 2y ago

Another point that just occurred to me: Who is the endorsement supposed to influence? I think in America at least, the national media has become so hyper partisan in the eyes of its readers, that an endorsement of a newspaper is really just preaching to the crowd. What difference does that endorsement really make? At the national level, I don't think it really makes a difference if a newspaper endorses a candidate for President. Those who read and value the opinions of that newspaper are more inclined to vote for the endorsed candidate anyways.

kcplate 2y ago
It influences no one, but it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that (now two, LATimes did same thing) normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump.
- Hasu 2y ago
  > it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump. It's not two media organizations. Both wrote endorsements of Harris. Two self-interested billionaires decided that they and their personal fortunes would be better off if those endorsements were not published. The message this sends to the Democratic party is: suck up to the rich guys if you want power. It's bad for society.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    > suck up to the rich guys if you want power You don’t think this is a recent lesson? Pretty sure every politician already realized this. Since literally forever. Hell, I worked for a company whose wealthy owner had a steady stream of politicians flowing in and out of our offices promising the world for a handout, support, and help. Seemed like every week there was a tour or two for somebody. I have met literally 3 governors, several senators, US reps, state reps, county commissioners, multiple presidential candidates, sheriffs, mayors, wannabes for all and scores of political support staff who excitedly walked in my office while trying to schmooze the old man.

bogantech 2y ago

> But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. He owns the paper, they just work there.

kcplate 2y ago
Honestly it’s surprising to me that people really think that the news side of a media company operates with complete autonomy from the business side. They might claim it exists but that’s a fallacy. I worked at a major daily newspaper 30 years ago and I personally know of two cases in my short tenure there where news stories were killed because they didn’t want to piss off important advertisers. I am also aware of a story involving a family member of one of the executives that was let’s say “barely” reported. Other local media organizations interestingly had much more detail than we carried. News has always been and will always be first—a business.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  We didn't give freedom of the press to protect businesses from government scrutiny. We did it to keep free information flowing. There's definitely some very hard and frank questions we need to ask if free information decides to focus on profits over communication.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    The press is free to report on whatever they want. That freedom however is not a mandate that they must report on everything. Newspapers and other media companies have ALWAYS focused on profit. Nothing new there. Plus in this day and age there is literally no restriction on the flow of public accessible information at least in the US. Even when it was tried recently (twitter, FB, YouTube) during the pandemic the public backlash to that attempts at information control was so great that it might literally sway this election.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago

transcriptase 2y ago

[flagged]

johnnyanmac 2y ago
you see how incedisive so many people are and sadly realize that yes: an endorsement from a big newspaper can mean a lot.