It's not JUST the lack of the endorsements by the WP and the LA Times

[senseandsensibility]

although I am as appalled by that as anyone. As Ron Filipkowski just posted, what does this say about who is pulling the strings at our elite media outlets? How many investigative stories on trump and the RW have been killed by these owners before today? How have they affected their coverage for months or years?

In a way, the blinders are off now. That might be a good thing.

[lame54]

1. Catch and kill - lots of Pecker's out there

[Joinfortmill]

17. Rofl. Couldn't help myself.

[Think. Again.]

2. I agree...

We've been watching for months how easily these publications and other "news" media are willing to just ignore basic truth in order to scratch up any views they can get.

If they are so afraid that a Harris Presidency will kill their golden goose, that's not a bad thing. At all.

[Straw Man]

3. I think there's a certain amount of fear involved.

Fear of violence from wingnuts and fear of official retribution should Trump be elected.

[Joinfortmill]

19. You'd think Germany would have taught them something

Last edited Fri Oct 25, 2024, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

[Wiz Imp]

4. Right. This should be a chilling sign for all media.

Any media people who take their job seriously should take this as a sign that the only right thing to do is to report all info they can confirm on trump no matter how negative. If he wins, he's going to try to silence you anyway even if you never write anything negative about trump.

[The Roux Comes First]

5. Is It Merely Cowardice and Greed?

Or are there other motivations involved?

And how do those first obvious two stimuli rank?

Clearly any spirit of competition and actual free markets is long dead in the halls of "journalism."

Please speak up, NYT, WaPo, LAT, WSJ, et al.! Your silence is deafening.

[Wednesdays]

6. They are not afraid. They are complicit. nt

[B.See]

33. They are both. And

they've failed this nation. We should never forget those who have, nor forgive them for it.

[RidinWithHarris]

7. At least the often timid, often sane washing NYT still gave Harris a strong endorsement

I’ll probably cancel my WaPo subscription now.

[MyOwnPeace]

24. Just cancelled mine yesterday!

Good timing, huh?

[RidinWithHarris]

25. WaPo has been canceled

But now I'm going to pay The Guardian $15/month instead.

[progressoid]

8. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They are businesses with advertisers.

[MadameButterfly]

39. If I was as rich as them I couldn't think of anything more valuable

to buy with my money as free speech and a chance to make a difference.

What would they do with their Trump profits? Get even crazier rich with money they can't spend until someday they find a line they can't cross and they fall out of a high window?

[StarryNite]

9. Good points but what can be done about it?

[Cha]

10. Here's the Actual Tweet from Ron Flipkowski in case anyone wants to pass it on.

Link to tweet

TY

[sheshe2]

11. He's right.

[Cha]

21. Yes he is... The Endorsements of Major Newspapers in 2020...

What Changed?

2020 General Election Editorial Endorsements by Major Newspapers

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/2020-general-election-editorial-endorsements-major-newspapers

[jalan48]

12. It's about power and money. Everything else is secondary to these people.

[Richluu]

14. I think they are scared

In case Trump wins. Covering their a.......

[jalan48]

18. Or, they see an opportunity to increase their power and financial fortune in a totalitarian state with Trump or Vance.

[Baggies]

13. Has anyone here ever cast their vote based upon a newspaper endorsement?

Specifically for President?

I haven’t. I’d have to question the sanity of anyone who has.

[Cirsium]

26. Of course

How people vote is a reflection of the national discussion about politics. All of us play a role in that. Media outlets play a disproportionately influential role. A formal endorsement is just one small part of that. If we are not influenced by what we read and what we here, how can we make any informed decisions about anything?

[Baggies]

34. That wasn't really the question.

Has anyone here ever decided who they are going to vote for by saying “I’m going to see who (news publication) endorses for president and whoever they say is who I’ll vote for”?

I never have.

I’ve read specific endorsements from papers like everyone else, but the effect was negligible. The platform laid out by the candidate compared to what they have actually done is what matters to me. If what they say and what they’ve done don’t match up, I go to the next step. These methods are different for every voter. But a specific paper endorsing or not endorsing? Couldn’t care less. Certainly not going to vote based upon it. And again, I’ve never heard anyone say “I voted for X for president because that’s who the NYT recommended.”

I’m in the camp with those here who are pointing out it’s not a concern.

[Cirsium]

36. I think so

I think endorsements have an effect. I don't know that anyone would say "I voted for X for president because that’s who the NYT recommended." That does not mea that it had no effect.

I don't think it is a "concern" by the way.

[MadameButterfly]

40. Yes, people are influenced by endorsements

It doesn't have to be big to swing this election. What matters to you isn't relevant---you are a policy wonk and you would never be in the position of needing to be persuaded this late or in this obvious an election.

But more important is they are signaling to the country that they think Trump is likely enough to win and the wise move is to capitulate in advance. They are the rats fleeing the Democratic ship. And they are telling Trump that the revenge Trump has already wrought on Bezos is working.

[Baggies]

45. I am far from a policy wonk

That’s a claim I would never wear. I would say that I might not know what will work all the time, but I can tell when something won’t work.

And you hit upon something I was thinking last night but didn’t say. If Bezos shut down any endorsement, what information does he know about how the presidential contest is going that he won’t say out loud but feels compelled to act upon? For all the reasons I heard and read why he did what he did, nothing seems more likely to me than the answer to that.

And for the record I never discounted influence. I just never heard of anyone who set aside their own will for that of a newspaper endorsement. As to the amount of influence, varies but I still don’t believe it’s much if any at all, though some seem to think otherwise.

[MadameButterfly]

48. You are participating in a Democratic forum

which makes you/us much more policy wonky that the average population and in particular the remaining undecided voters. We aren't typical. Much more informed than average, while the undecideds are much less. Understanding what would influence the latter requires thinking outside of our experience.

[Conjuay]

46. Their endorsement is not the issue

A press that spent TEN YEARS coddling this MENTAL CASE has proven they are propagandist NOT Journalists!

[Skittles]

35. you are completely missing the point

it doesn't MATTER if it affects your vote - what matters is BEZOS has more of a say than do the JOURNALISTS.....THIS SHOULD ALARM YOU

[Baggies]

37. Nothing shocks me anymore

If someone told me they let the newspaper decide who they vote for president, it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve just never heard anyone say that, and still haven’t.

I’m gonna stick with the point I was making and not chase some rabbit trail.

[Skittles]

38. DONE HERE

hopeless

[kcr]

47. It isn't about direct influence on any single voter

If WaPo is too chickenshit to endorse a candidate, then they are too chickenshit to be trusted on their reporting. If the owner of the WaPo has decided to wield his influence to benefit his self-interest, then his paper can't be trusted to fairly and accurately report on the election. Or any topic for that matter.

[Bev54]

15. If you read any of the independent news sites, you will

Realize how much they leave out or twist in a lot of stories to fit their own narrative. These independents will often call them out in their sloppy reporting. Both WaPo and NYTimes. Some writers from both are good but many are not.

[Joinfortmill]

16. Yup. Karma is going to be a bitch...cause

Kamala is gonna win big, very big. And people will not forget.

[MadameButterfly]

41. We need to pledge not to

Anything we have to do to get Bezos out of the newspaper business. Even if it means losing WaPo
Then we have to swing our support to deserving newspapers who just haven't had their Watergate--yet

[moniss]

20. People know the truth of the dirt on Bezos and others

but most are genuinely afraid for themselves and their families. Would billionaire Bezos have someone killed in order to not have his empire come crashing down? Is there any real doubt? It's not just him either. The greater the fortune the greater the power and the seductive love of that power and the wealth that makes it possible. They will cling to defending that even if it means foresaking all else.

[Scalded Nun]

22. Neville Chamberlain would have loved these guys. Cowardly, complicit, self-serving.

[MadameButterfly]

42. Chamberlain made the wrong call but

at least he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing. WWI was fresh in his memory.

These guys know they are doing it for themselves and only themselves and that we could be harmed irrevocably, yet they do it.

[ancianita]

23. The ugly truth -- that papers of record serve owner/corporate interests -- is better for the country than pretty lies.

[pat_k]

27. Big support for expanding PBS and NPR needed.

[Klarkashton]

29. You figure that those two don't toe the line?

They receive direct govt funding.

[pat_k]

30. I believe they take their obligation to serve the public seriously.

Maybe I'm deluded, but I think they do a decent job.

[MadameButterfly]

44. No they don't.

They adhere to strict journalistic prinicples. There are people like that out there.

[MadameButterfly]

43. Requiring Democratic Congress

and president

[live love laugh]

28. This is very old news. Seems like people want to believe the media is "corporate"

instead of owned by Republicans.

[senseandsensibility]

31. Republicans are corporate

and serve corporate interests, mainly tax cuts and eliminating regulations. So I fail to see the difference.

[live love laugh]

32. You may fail to see the difference but many don't.