Who Freakin' Cares Whom The NY Times Endorses?

Or any other paper, for that matter?

The Washington Times--one of the two most readable and enjoyable daily newspapers in the nation's capital--has a great story about how voters don't give a rat's ass about newspaper endorsements. To wit:

Four years ago, E&P [Editor & Publisher] surveyed 2,000 likely voters and revealed that 94 percent of them could not care less who their local newspaper endorsed, and 70 percent thought their paper should stop endorsing candidates altogether. Mr. Mitchell thinks such sentiments still prevail.

Whole thing here.

Mega-bonus irony: This story ran the day that the Wash Times officially endorsed… [building tension]…George W. Bush. Why? Because he's got the "moral uprightness" of a politician who's been chowing on the ideological equivalent of Cialis, at least since 9/11. And because Kerry's a limp dick on terrorism. Or something like that. Read it all here. And then ignore it.

Comments

[Neb Okla]

What's a newspaper?

Last time I saw someone from the Dispatch trying to sell subscriptions I politely responded "I get my news from the Internet".

The salesperson said "Oh yeah? Good *luck*! Well we're going to start charging for that soon!"

Hurrah! They now charge me to read a newspaper online that I didn't read anyway! I'm so hurt!

...meanwhile, for local news, the local CBS affiliate (WBNS) covers all of the same stories in near real-time. In fact, it's owned by the same people who own the Dispatch!

They're just a bunch of old fuddy-duddies like the RIAA and MPAA who want to have their cake and eat it too.

The left hand (print) doesn't know what the right hand (TV) is doing, and as a result they give me more timely information for free while assuming that I *need* day-old history for a fee.

The whole organization is run by the Gumbies, why should I care who they think should be president.

[Pete Guither]

You're kidding! The Washington Times endorsed Bush? I never would have guessed. I may have to re-think my position.

[John Gorenfeld]

The Washington Times is also enjoyable because it fulfilled "God's desperate desire to save this world."

[John]

Whoops, that should have been

this

[Warren]

Trying to put two and two together here... So the editor gets to pimp for his boy but his minions must remain mute?

[Bokonon]

Warren

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Stevo Threadkiller]

John Gorenfeld: I berieve the estabrishment of the Washington Times was inebbidible. INEBBIDIBLE!

[Kevin B. O'Reilly]

Is the purpose of a newspaper's presidential endorsement to persuade its readers one way or the other? I don't think so. The purpose is to establish in a public way the paper's values. That said, the further down the ballot you get, the more influential a local newspaper's endorsements. And a tide of endorsements one way or another can make a very small difference on the national level.

[Daniel Carver]

Hmph. I use the local mulletwrapper's advice to decide who to vote AGAINST (endorsement by those commies means the other candidate is likely to be less-repugnant!).
Not-Daniel

[Jacob]

Exactly, Daniel !

The NY Times endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html)
has a long list of detailed arguments for endorsing Kerry, besides the Iraq war.
How a libertarian can read all those arguments and still prefer Kerry is beyond me. Kerry is worse than Bush on every issue.

Voting for none of the above is understandable, but voting for Kerry ???

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Trying to put two and two together here... So the editor gets to pimp for his boy but his minions must remain mute?"

I don't see the Moony Times nor the Washington Compost doing this. They blatantly run editorials as front-page pieces. I'm constantly feeling that I'm being instructed, not being informed, by these assholes.

The Post, before election day, runs a handy "voter guide" small enough to clip and carry in your wallet, so you can take it to the voting booth. Fucking unbelievable. Trey Parker is right.

[mobile]

I was going to vote for Bush, but if the Times is going to use words like "throughgoing", I'll have to reconsider.

[joe]

I belive the Metro is now available in DC, which makes the first statment in the second paragraph untrue.

[undecided moonie]

Heinlein Quote...

"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and measures you want to vote for... But there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong." Lazarus Long

I see nothing I want to vote for FOR in Kerry...but I do see a heck of a lot I wan't to vote AGAINST in Bush.

In the bullshit balance, it's become a case of who's going to be the less damaging. Jury's out and it ain't coming back...

Hold your nose and pull the lever...wheeee!

[Ben]

It's not about who a paper overtly endorses. It's about who their editorial policy slants articles to favor. Ditto for any news outlet.

[Luisa]

I'll bet 90% of people also would say that commercials don't inpact their purchasing decisions.

[David T]

The point is, the major newspapers don't have any choice but to endorse the candidates they are assumed to favor--unless they actually want to help defeat them. The reason is that if they *don't* endorse, that is counted as opposition. Imagine the field day the Democrats would have with "not even the Washington Times could bring itself to support Bush" or the Republicans with "not even the New York Times could bring itself to suppport Kerry" etc. The endorsements probably change no votes but the *failure* to endorse would probably change a few. (Maybe *very* few--but in a close election a very few votes can matter, as 2000 showed...)

[David T]

Luisa: a story (maybe apocryphal) my brother once told me: They were asking a woman if advertising ever affected her buying decisions. She said No. Then she was asked what toothpaste she used. She replied Gleem. But she immediately added, "But it's not because of their advertising. It's because I can't brush my teeth after every meal..."

[Timon]

Neb, the Cbus "Disgrace" and the whole Wolff Media Empire is completely irrelevant these days. I feel your pain.

What crap they are. At any rate, the Dispatch's news is only slightly more difficult than other pay news outlets to obtain. Which is to say it's not that difficult.

They don't seem to be able to close all the holes regarding their other various tentacles posting reprints of Dispatch stories.

[Jon]

"The Washington Times--one of the two most readable and enjoyable daily newspapers in the nation's capital"

Plus, they'll get you married, to, uh, whoever's handy. And the ceremony covers you and several hundred of your closest friends at the same time. Really cuts down on the planning expenses.