Wow, I'm surprised to see them openly endorsing a candidate. It's hard to find the news simply reported, for sure, but it's sad to see something like this. Media outlets telling people who to vote for is wrong.
that link didn't all the way appear, but anyways they (NY Times) supported john kerry in 2004, Des Moines register supported McCain, as did some New Hampshire rag, but I don't remember which.
They're all politically minded individuals, who have their own preferences anyway, the reporter voicing his/her opinion in the op-ed section won't impact his/her article writing more than it would if he kept his/her opinion silent. And if their reporters do show favoritism, the consumer can call shenanigans, and have the ed. peice to back it up. Plus I have faith in most of the NY Times hires to be able to separate private/professionalism, because everything they create is on display. But you're right it does have its dangers.
I mean, I guess you're right about the public/private thing, but I still don't understand the company endorsing a candidate. Maybe an op-ed writer, but this says the whole editorial board. I wonder if there was any debate involved or how a group of individual journalists come to this consensus. I really just felt weird when I saw that.
7 comments:
Wow, I'm surprised to see them openly endorsing a candidate. It's hard to find the news simply reported, for sure, but it's sad to see something like this. Media outlets telling people who to vote for is wrong.
it was an editorial though. Newspapers always endorse candidates through editorials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26THU1.html?ex=1201410000&en=8da8d24c80184916&ei=5070
that link didn't all the way appear, but anyways they (NY Times) supported john kerry in 2004, Des Moines register supported McCain, as did some New Hampshire rag, but I don't remember which.
They may have done it in the past, but it still isn't necessarily good. If they have a preference they are bound to report that way.
They're all politically minded individuals, who have their own preferences anyway, the reporter voicing his/her opinion in the op-ed section won't impact his/her article writing more than it would if he kept his/her opinion silent. And if their reporters do show favoritism, the consumer can call shenanigans, and have the ed. peice to back it up. Plus I have faith in most of the NY Times hires to be able to separate private/professionalism, because everything they create is on display. But you're right it does have its dangers.
I mean, I guess you're right about the public/private thing, but I still don't understand the company endorsing a candidate. Maybe an op-ed writer, but this says the whole editorial board. I wonder if there was any debate involved or how a group of individual journalists come to this consensus. I really just felt weird when I saw that.
its pretty wack anyhow
Post a Comment