In case anybody who works at Washington Post or LA Times is reading this, I’d just like to point out:
You have the text of that endorsement,
and you have the facts and your own thoughts about being silenced by your billionaire master, thoughts which you can surely put in words,
and SOMEBODY has the password the CMS
and SOMEBODY has the DNS credentials
and SOMEBODY sends that final draft to press
and in no cases is that “somebody” the paper’s owner. Just saying.
@inthehands Is there a real person somewhere in america who is waiting on the endorsement of a specific paper? A person who has been scrupulous on learning nothing about both the current election cycle and the forty+ years we have known these candidates.
Is there a person awaiting the GWB endorsement that wouldn't already know who Cheney is and was?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for WaPo/LA Times/newspaper hate. It's just weird that _this_ is why people are getting mad at the paper now
@level2wizard
1. People grossly overestimate the prevalence of their own circle of experience; you’re likely doing that in imagining that endorsements don’t influence anyone.
2. Regardless, beside the point: this an unambiguous crossing of a red line by billionaire owners. Not “oh, seems like maybe there’s undue influence;” just ownership nakedly overriding editorial integrity. Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
@inthehands 1. Fair point, like many things about the mythical American voter I clearly have no concept. I'm sure my neolib circle of friends will have Strong Opinions about papers that don't endorse when I see them next, but they've also been locked-in for Biden (and then Harris) for months and the endorsement isn't changing their minds.
2. Ugh, who cares, this is true of newspapers since forever (cf Hearst). Independent journalists are all we have, and they're struggling
Paul Cantrell
Byron 