08-13-2024, 05:07 PM
This post was last modified 08-13-2024, 05:08 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
I found this to be a deviation from the "political influence" paradigms we have been experiencing for generations.
From early on in our history, local periodicals and news publishers have been 'courted' and 'romanced' by the political machinery in order to secure public praise and exculpatory verbiage for their 'candidates, et. al.' Often, "access" was bartered for some control over the nature of coverage, the extent of criticism, and even PR damage control from the press... The New York Times was never an exception to that rule.... that is, apparently, until now...
From Fox News: New York Times upsets liberals with new endorsement policy: 'What a terrible decision'
Subtitled: The paper announced its editorial board will no longer offer endorsements in state and local races
The New York Times is facing blowback from New York City progressives and journalists over its decision to stop making endorsements in state and local races.
The Times itself first reported on the move and how "the change will be immediate," saying that the paper "does not plan to take a stance in Senate, congressional or state legislative races in New York this fall, or in next year’s New York City elections," which includes New York City Mayor Eric Adams' reelection bid.
"As the institutional voice of The Times, the editorial board serves our mission to help our global audience understand the world by providing a consistent, independent view of the world based on time-tested institutional values," Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury said in a statement given to Fox News Digital.
"While elections everywhere remain critical to the lives and experiences of our audience, the editorial board is ceasing the endorsement process for New York elections. We remain a journalistic institution rooted in New York City, both historically, today and in the future. Our newsroom will continue to report aggressively on New York electoral races, and Opinion will continue to offer perspective on the races, candidates and issues at stake."
The Times will continue to offer its endorsement in presidential races.
I am wondering at the nature of this change. Is it that the 'payoff' for endorsements is never worth the outcome? Is it that the "personal" nature of so many pundits and talking heads is so egregiously biased and unrepresentative of journalism that it belies the idea that there is such a thing as a political "news" report? Are the editorial masters not getting enough bang for their buck from pandering to their audience?
Well, they are still remaining on their usual course with the Presidential race... so maybe it's just an 'experiment.'
I often found it silly that people think a newspaper, or any news organization should "take sides" as if that were actually part of the news... but then maybe that's just me.
"Journalism,"... sadly, you died contorting and writhing in the blathering of the partisan and activist... who gave you nothing in return for the suffering they often invoke.
From early on in our history, local periodicals and news publishers have been 'courted' and 'romanced' by the political machinery in order to secure public praise and exculpatory verbiage for their 'candidates, et. al.' Often, "access" was bartered for some control over the nature of coverage, the extent of criticism, and even PR damage control from the press... The New York Times was never an exception to that rule.... that is, apparently, until now...
From Fox News: New York Times upsets liberals with new endorsement policy: 'What a terrible decision'
Subtitled: The paper announced its editorial board will no longer offer endorsements in state and local races
The New York Times is facing blowback from New York City progressives and journalists over its decision to stop making endorsements in state and local races.
The Times itself first reported on the move and how "the change will be immediate," saying that the paper "does not plan to take a stance in Senate, congressional or state legislative races in New York this fall, or in next year’s New York City elections," which includes New York City Mayor Eric Adams' reelection bid.
"As the institutional voice of The Times, the editorial board serves our mission to help our global audience understand the world by providing a consistent, independent view of the world based on time-tested institutional values," Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury said in a statement given to Fox News Digital.
"While elections everywhere remain critical to the lives and experiences of our audience, the editorial board is ceasing the endorsement process for New York elections. We remain a journalistic institution rooted in New York City, both historically, today and in the future. Our newsroom will continue to report aggressively on New York electoral races, and Opinion will continue to offer perspective on the races, candidates and issues at stake."
The Times will continue to offer its endorsement in presidential races.
I am wondering at the nature of this change. Is it that the 'payoff' for endorsements is never worth the outcome? Is it that the "personal" nature of so many pundits and talking heads is so egregiously biased and unrepresentative of journalism that it belies the idea that there is such a thing as a political "news" report? Are the editorial masters not getting enough bang for their buck from pandering to their audience?
Well, they are still remaining on their usual course with the Presidential race... so maybe it's just an 'experiment.'
I often found it silly that people think a newspaper, or any news organization should "take sides" as if that were actually part of the news... but then maybe that's just me.
"Journalism,"... sadly, you died contorting and writhing in the blathering of the partisan and activist... who gave you nothing in return for the suffering they often invoke.
