Do you like it when a newspaper endorses a candidate? This has always annoyed me, because I do not feel that it is a newspaper’s place to give their political opinion, even if their opinion agrees with mine.
I understand and know there is media bias, and newspapers are usually liberal to fairly conservative, depending on what kind of newspaper it is and the people they are trying to reach (for example, those weekly alternative city magazines with the bar and cool place listing is more liberal that the daily rag). Or political magazines and newspapers with a political bent. But a local newspaper should be as non-biased as possible. How to be non-biased? Don’t be biased, write the facts, not opinions.
My hometown newspaper “The Commercial Appeal” from Memphis does this and I find it to be annoying in the extreme. Most of the time they pick the Democrat or the most liberal candidate. Every time they do this, I want to call their editor and tell them to shut the f**k up and write news, not opinions.
My endorsements:
Alvin Greene in South Carolina: The man is dumb as fuck and we should elect a man who is dumb as fuck to Congress who makes dumb as fuck laws everyday. We elect these assholes and do not deserve much better.
Christine McDonnell in Delaware: Why? She’s cute as hell. Dresses nice. Looks better than that bald dude she’s running against. The country is so fucked up right now, does it really matter who we elect? No, it doesn’t. So, let’s honestly say to ourseleves that democracy is more or less a beauty contest and go from there.
Jerry Brown in California. Dude fucked Linda Ronstadt. (for all of you under 30, Google Linda Ronstadt.)
Prince Mongo for King of the Earth… (who is Prince Mongo you ask, he’s a real dude.)
The editorial page is in fact quite literally a newspaper’s place to give their political opinion.
And I do like it when a newspaper endorses a candidate, assuming they thoughtfully give their reasons. Who’s more informed about what all the candidates have been saying and doing than the newspaper?
The people doing the endorsing at a newspaper – the publisher, the editorial page editor, editorialists, etc. – are not the same people responsible for the content of the news pages.
First of all, as has been said, every newspaper in history has had an editorial page, and every editorial page has given opinions about upcoming elections.
As for the specifics about endorsing candidates, I read the opinions but of course I make up my own mind. The more prominent the office and the candidates, the less important the editorials.
For example, it makes no difference what the papers say about who I should vote for President, Senator, or Governor. There’s plenty of information in the media for me to make up my own mind. But I read carefully their endorsements for such positions as city councilor, school board member, local propositions, etc. There’s not much info out there for those local issues.
I don’t mind it when a paper endorses a candidate. A newspaper is not a public utility, it’s a private enterprise, and the owner/s can do what they want with it, so long as actual falsehoods aren’t printed.
It’s up to me to read critically, and do further research on candidates, if I question the editorial stance of a paper.
I like how on one had you dismiss democracy as a 'beauty contest" and on the next hate on Jerry Brown for sexing a girl you consider less-than-ideally-beautiful.
Yea, that was my read to. In any case, its not exactly crazy to say that choosing sex partners should be something of a beauty contest while politics should not.
I have no problem with endorsements at all. All media outlets have biases, some more transparent than others. I want to know the nature of the animal I’m dealing with, so I know how to evaluate their coverage overall.