101–110 of 1001 posts
It seems like it would be less polarizing if it was the default state for news and information outlets to not endorse any candidate ever and just remain as neutral as possible.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re in. Situation wheee one of the candidates routinely criticizes us and praises our enemies, and still pulls at about 42%. Rationality is not in evidence.
If this race is right, then whatever I thought about people was wrong. Then again, I always wonder what the hell actually went through peoples minds in Nazi Germany.
Good because newspapers should not be endorsing candidates.
This is probably the most important topic here. It reveals their bias/partisonship and turns the whole newspaper into an opinion piece
The Editorial Board pens endorsements. It is literally an opinion piece, in the section of the paper reserved for opinion pieces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of Democrats wanted Biden to drop out and approve of Harris as the nominee https://apnews.com/article/poll-joe-biden-kamala-harris-dona...
The point is that Democratic voters didn't get a chance to have their voice heard. Conducting polling is post-hoc rationalization for Harris being installed by party leaders in unprecedentedly anti-democratic action.
More interesting to me is that this is the third tech billionaire to take a decidedly different stance than he did previously. Musk is quite active, but even Zuckerberg took a much more neutral stance for 2024. Honestly I'm more surprised that Bezos even bothered. Does he really think the endorsement of The Washington Post editorial board is so significant that it's worth intervening? That seems implausible.
Musk is a true believer, but Zuck and Bezos probably fear retribution from Trump if he wins and they endorsed Harris.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of Democrats wanted Biden to drop out and approve of Harris as the nominee https://apnews.com/article/poll-joe-biden-kamala-harris-dona...
The point is that Democratic voters didn't get a chance to have their voice heard. Conducting polling is post-hoc rationalization for Harris being installed by party leaders in unprecedentedly anti-democratic action.
Criticizing the Democrats for being anti-democratic here would carry a lot more weight if the Republican nominee wasn't responsible for J6 and the fake electors plot.
So they aren't going to endorse either candidate. If I didn't have context about the situation, I'd say it makes sense. However I think that in this flawed two-party situation, there is unfairness on both sides, resulting in some sort of balance, and it's bad that one of the richest people on earth could upset the balance in this way, especially at the last moment. Article from 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/op…
More interesting to me is that this is the third tech billionaire to take a decidedly different stance than he did previously. Musk is quite active, but even Zuckerberg took a much more neutral stance for 2024. Honestly I'm more surprised that Bezos even bothered. Does he really think the endorsement of The Washington Post editorial board is so significant that it's worth intervening? That seems implausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re in. Situation wheee one of the candidates routinely criticizes us and praises our enemies, and still pulls at about 42%. Rationality is not in evidence.
If this race is right, then whatever I thought about people was wrong. Then again, I always wonder what the hell actually went through peoples minds in Nazi Germany.
To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?
The issue at hand here is what happens to objective news reporting when a rampant vindictive psychopath enters the office of the President.