• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Here come the newspaper endorsements.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_10703339

San Jose Mercury News endorses Obama.

I am old enough to remember when people actually read newspapers and their endorsements meant something.
Today, I think, while they don't carry nearly enough weight, they do kind of take a little attention away from the campaigns.
Which may be a good thing as many actually give thought to their endorsement and the editorial that goes with them.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
contemporary print media always makes me think of Ozymandias...

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

which isn't to say that I don't read newspapers myself, but I probably wouldn't if my job didn't have long stretches of unbearable boredom.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
contemporary print media always makes me think of Ozymandias...

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

which isn't to say that I don't read newspapers myself, but I probably wouldn't if my job didn't have long stretches of unbearable boredom.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2235746
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: loki8481
contemporary print media always makes me think of Ozymandias...

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

which isn't to say that I don't read newspapers myself, but I probably wouldn't if my job didn't have long stretches of unbearable boredom.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2235746
the consensus in that thread is that it's a gay thing to do, so I think I'm safe :p
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I know it's cool now to hate the media, but I think newspaper endorsements are at least worth considering...not so much WHO they support as WHY they do so. In a world of increasingly thoughtless commentary, it's refreshing to see relatively reasonable opinions expressed by people who, love 'em or hate 'em, put a lot more thought into what they say than the Bill O'Reilly crowd of pundits.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,943
1,276
126
Newspaper endorsements are significant for local and state races, because most people don't pay enough attention. For the presidency, well - the question is more like should I cancel my subscription because of these buffoons? Beat them to it this year-my paper has been "improved" by firing 1/3 of the reporters, reducing page count, increasing white space and general dumbing down, so I already dumped them.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Yes I'm sure with some. IMO, papers should not endorse anybody. They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
Whew... I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Oh, and LOL at techs being old enough to remember reading newspapers. I had him pegged for 8, 9 tops.

 

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
81
Maybe its just me, but I disagree with ANY newspaper/media outlet enforcing any candidate for any office. Media should be there to provide the news in an impartial/nonpartisan manner, and endorsing one candidate over the other does the exact opposite.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
Whew... I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Oh, and LOL at techs being old enough to remember reading newspapers. I had him pegged for 8, 9 tops.
The columnists and editors are allowed to have opinions, that's why there's a separate section of the paper for that. If the NYT came out on page 1 and said "Everyone should vote for Obama", yeah, I'd be against that.
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
No, ever since the corrupt/foolish liberals took over, endorsements from newspapers have meant little.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
Whew... I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Oh, and LOL at techs being old enough to remember reading newspapers. I had him pegged for 8, 9 tops.
The columnists and editors are allowed to have opinions, that's why there's a separate section of the paper for that. If the NYT came out on page 1 and said "Everyone should vote for Obama", yeah, I'd be against that.
Of course they're allowed to have opinions. But when AN EDITOR from Flaming Lantern endorses a candidate and then said candidate says ENDORSED BY FLAMING LANTERN, it's no longer an individual endorsement, IMO? At least it's not perceived as one.

Of course the papers, news outlets, etc., are entitled to do whatever the they want, obviously... but if they want to be taken seriously as an objective source of information, many people - such as myself and others here - believe they should maintain an image of impartiality.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes I'm sure with some. IMO, papers should not endorse anybody. They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
That's ridiculous. Newspapers have a LONG tradition of editorializing in specially marked sections and keeping it separate from unbiased coverage of the issues. Why is it so different if their editorial board states a preference for a particular candidate?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: aphex
Maybe its just me, but I disagree with ANY newspaper/media outlet enforcing any candidate for any office. Media should be there to provide the news in an impartial/nonpartisan manner, and endorsing one candidate over the other does the exact opposite.
You think it's impossible to both personally prefer a particular candidate and provide impartial coverage of the news?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: aphex
Maybe its just me, but I disagree with ANY newspaper/media outlet enforcing any candidate for any office. Media should be there to provide the news in an impartial/nonpartisan manner, and endorsing one candidate over the other does the exact opposite.
You think it's impossible to both personally prefer a particular candidate and provide impartial coverage of the news?
FoxNews does it.




BBWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHH....... I made a funny!

 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
Whew... I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Oh, and LOL at techs being old enough to remember reading newspapers. I had him pegged for 8, 9 tops.
The columnists and editors are allowed to have opinions, that's why there's a separate section of the paper for that. If the NYT came out on page 1 and said "Everyone should vote for Obama", yeah, I'd be against that.
Of course they're allowed to have opinions. But when AN EDITOR from Flaming Lantern endorses a candidate and then said candidate says ENDORSED BY FLAMING LANTERN, it's no longer an individual endorsement, IMO? At least it's not perceived as one.

Of course the papers, news outlets, etc., are entitled to do whatever the they want, obviously... but if they want to be taken seriously as an objective source of information, many people - such as myself and others here - believe they should maintain an image of impartiality.
I think I just have a different opinion.

Quick anecdote:

I'm very liberal in my views and as such, usually vote Democratic. But as someone who works in the financial sector, I needed a good news source to stay on top of business/finance news. For years I read the Wall Street Journal and thought it was the greatest paper in the world. Their business coverage was excellent. I didn't care that I never agreed with their editorials or columns. I think biases exist whether or not the editor publishes his views, but a good editor is able to set their biases aside and produce a final product that is accurate and informative.

 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
Whew... I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Oh, and LOL at techs being old enough to remember reading newspapers. I had him pegged for 8, 9 tops.
The columnists and editors are allowed to have opinions, that's why there's a separate section of the paper for that. If the NYT came out on page 1 and said "Everyone should vote for Obama", yeah, I'd be against that.
Of course they're allowed to have opinions. But when AN EDITOR from Flaming Lantern endorses a candidate and then said candidate says ENDORSED BY FLAMING LANTERN, it's no longer an individual endorsement, IMO? At least it's not perceived as one.

Of course the papers, news outlets, etc., are entitled to do whatever the they want, obviously... but if they want to be taken seriously as an objective source of information, many people - such as myself and others here - believe they should maintain an image of impartiality.
I think I just have a different opinion.

Quick anecdote:

I'm very liberal in my views and as such, usually vote Democratic. But as someone who works in the financial sector, I needed a good news source to stay on top of business/finance news. For years I read the Wall Street Journal and thought it was the greatest paper in the world. Their business coverage was excellent. I didn't care that I never agreed with their editorials or columns. I think biases exist whether or not the editor publishes his views, but a good editor is able to set their biases aside and produce a final product that is accurate and informative.
Fair enough :thumbsup:
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: aphex
Maybe its just me, but I disagree with ANY newspaper/media outlet enforcing any candidate for any office. Media should be there to provide the news in an impartial/nonpartisan manner, and endorsing one candidate over the other does the exact opposite.
Incorrect for two reasons:

1) Endorsements are given in the editorial pages; editorials are opinions of the newspaper's editorial board.

2) The purpose of the media is NOT to simply be an echo chamber, repeating words and events verbatim. That is dangerous, especially when reporting political news, where the media needs to try their hardest not to be a pulpit for politicians to project their smears.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
... Newspapers have a LONG tradition of editorializing in specially marked sections and keeping it separate from unbiased coverage of the issues. Why is it so different if their editorial board states a preference for a particular candidate?
You're wasting your time. Rush and company have convinced the Right that there is no such thing as impartial reporting. Journalistic integrity is a myth. So far as they are concerned, any news source that provides any editorial content is by definition biased...unless they provide a Conservative editorial viewpoint, in which case they are de facto Fair and Balanced.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,943
1,276
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes I'm sure with some. IMO, papers should not endorse anybody. They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
Newspapers have been endorsing candidates since George Washington's day. And they were a whole lot more influential then. Now they basically are a source for local news and food store coupons.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
http://www.nydailynews.com/opi..._for_president_-4.html

Daily News endorses Obama for President: He has the promise to renew America at home and abroad


This is big news because its the paper owned by Mort Zuckerman who is a noted Conservative. (btw he also publishes the US News and World Report).
This is actually a broadside against the neo-cons. Zuckerman is conservative, a real conservative, who appears on many talk shows.
What this shows is that the members of the real Republican party may actually be fighting back over the hijacking of their party.
The odds agains Zuckerman endorsing Obama over McCain, say 3 months ago, was 99.9 percent pro McCain.
Shocking.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,943
1,276
126
Having read the Daily News on occassion, I agree with techs-their endorsement of Obama is a momentous occassion.

Surprisingly to me, the NY Daily News endorsement doesn't even mention Palin, a point I thought they would hang their hat on. Instead they do a straight up comparison of Obama to McCain, and go for McCain.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,704
9,912
136
The Oregonian "strongly" endorses Obama for President

Obama for President
by The Editorial Board
Sunday October 19, 2008, 9:01 AM

The Democrat brings a new hope to a country that badly needs it.

In the century and a half that Oregon and The Oregonian have been making presidential choices, there has rarely been a time when the nation so desperately needed a sharp change in direction.

To provide that change, The Oregonian strongly urges voters to support Barack Obama.

Obama has the best chance, and the best abilities, to rebuild an American economy that has grown dangerously unstable, with government, consumers and the nation itself spiraling deeply into debt and selling off the national future to pay for daily expenses. He is the best choice to rebuild the American position in the world, to restore our ties with traditional allies, to re-make the American argument to the rest of the world.

Crucially, Barack Obama can recall the United States to its own highest principles and priorities. He can change course after an administration that has often cut constitutional and legal corners, and frequently stumbled into policy and philosophical embarassment.

Over his career, and over his candidacy, Obama has shown a powerful ability to reach people, especially the young, who have become indifferent or despairing about the American future. He has also conducted a long, massive, impressively orchestrated campaign that displayed his ability to remain poised, focused and organized under pressure.

That ability brought him from a longshot with a relatively slim resume to the Democratic nomination, and now the brink of the presidency.

Obama's historic role in this campaign -- the first African-American major party nominee for president -- may well strengthen his ability to make those connections. His identity and his attitude will clearly change the image that the United States presents to the rest of the world, at a time when that change is desperately needed.

The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, of all people, recently concluded that Barack Obama had both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. The next president will badly need both.

By contrast, John McCain has had considerable difficulty finding a voice and a direction for his campaign. The Oregonian supported McCain for the Republican nomination, and has admired many of his positions over his career, including his opposition to torture, his commitment to a realistic immigration policy and his insistence on the reality of man-made global warming. We continue to admire his record, and his contributions to this country.

But in this campaign, the historic John McCain has often been hard to see. Some of his bolder independent positions have been dropped by the wayside in his pursuit of the Republican nomination, and McCain has shown little ability to adapt to new circumstances.

With little economic expertise or interest throughout his career, McCain has cast about for a response to the market meltdown, tossing out different approaches while showing little insight into the problem. He has been quick to cite the relatively minor issue of congressional earmarks, and has denounced "Wall Street greed," although in Congress he has urged ever deeper deregulation of the financial markets.

As McCain's prospects have declined, he has relied ever more on dark hints about Obama's connections, or suggestions that only one party was truly patriotic. This has been both distasteful and unlike the earlier John McCain.

Two particular issues, on presidential-level appointments, reinforce our endorsement.

In the first major choice made by any nominee, Obama showed considerably better judgment. His pick for running mate, Joe Biden, has an extensive background, especially in foreign policy, and the clear capacity to be a significant asset to an Obama administration, much as Al Gore was to Bill Clinton.

McCain's choice, in stunning contrast, has a background of a year and a half as governor of Alaska, and has claimed, with a straight face, that she has national security credentials because from Alaska you can see Russia. Supporting her, McCain has offered the equally jaw-dropping claim that Sarah Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in the United States.

Having Palin a heartbeat from the presidency makes our own heart miss a beat.

The next president will make crucial appointments to a sharply divided Supreme Court. This issue is generally raised in terms of the abortion issue, but it goes far deeper than that.

At a time when the Bush administration has repeatedly assaulted American traditions protecting privacy, banning torture and guaranteeing the right of habeas corpus, even a generally conservative Supreme Court has stood against his incursions. But the addition of more justices embracing a doctrine of an all-powerful executive could change American law and rights beyond recognition.

This has been a very long campaign, and since its beginning the favorites -- and the themes -- have changed repeatedly. Way back in the winter of 2007, the key issue seemed to be Iraq, a theme that has been steadily replaced by the economy, until this month's market meltdown seemed to blot out everything else.

But even more unnervingly, the time has also seen the American people's confidence in their system and their society erode rapidly, until the most recent CBS poll found only 7 percent thought the country was moving in the right direction, while 89 percent thought "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track."

It's a situation that requires not only a policy change, but a powerful call for Americans to remember the things that hold us together, and to believe in them again.

In Barack Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," he explains what he means by that phrase: "the audacity to believe that despite all the evidence to the contrary that we could restore a sense of community to a nation torn by conflict."

That audacity, and his ability to make others believe in it, is one of the strongest reasons to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States.
This is an excellent and reasoned argument IMO. And it's from the editorial board and printed in the separate Op-Ed section of the paper. It's not like newspapers make their endorsements on the front page.
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
5
71
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I know it's cool now to hate the media, but I think newspaper endorsements are at least worth considering...not so much WHO they support as WHY they do so. In a world of increasingly thoughtless commentary, it's refreshing to see relatively reasonable opinions expressed by people who, love 'em or hate 'em, put a lot more thought into what they say than the Bill O'Reilly crowd of pundits.
I agree. I really enjoyed reading the New Yorker's endorsement of Obama. It's a level of discussion and discourse (although being obviously one-sided) that you don't see when you turn on the TV, listen to talk radio, etc.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY