All that being true, it still would have been better for these newspapers to announce their non-endorsement policies months ago. The suggestion of cowering to specific pressure from Trump does not help their journalistic credibility.
I think that Josh makes the good point that there's very little reason to believe the journalists at the Post will go easy on Trump if he is elected, and every reason to fear that they'll provide the kind of "moral clarity" that cost them so much credibility last time.
The fact that the major non-conservative newspapers and media outlets are tediously, preachily anti-Trump may not help Democrats as much as Democrats would like, but it is evident for all to see. The popularity on the center-left of the insane notion that the Post or the NYT is pro-Trump (here's the reliable Borowitz: https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/new-york-times-admits-sean-hannity) gives cause for concern.
I think that paired with a decision to downplay actually newsworthy items that could make Trump look bad, it's a poor choice. But I'm not sure how much that's actually happening - lots of left-liberal pundits insist it's a huge problem at the major papers, but every time I independently look at these publications I can find plenty of Trump-hostile coverage. I think some (though not all) of these critics just want their opinions reflected back to them.
Meanwhile, why isn't there more interest in influencing publications that reachable undecided voters actually read (or, more likely, hear or watch)?
I don't know whether that would have worked, but that's one example for sure. I also haven't heard much about local news and entertainment markets that actually have convincing draw. What's Sinclair Broadcast Group up to these days?
Your headline states a bold position that I'm not certain is a good one. But I am certain that I disagree with the (emphatic) contention that an endorsement "does signal to readers that the newspaper has a bias, making it harder to get some readers to trust the paper’s news reporting."
Making a decision based on facts and an assessment of risks does not necessarily amount to holding, much less signaling, a bias. I was a soldier and I am a lawyer. Some of my friends sacrificed their lives to fulfill their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. Many of us sacrificed our health. All of us sacrificed our happiness and big parts of our lives. Many people take their oaths seriously despite great cost or discomfort. So I've endorsed Harris and I oppose Trump because of what I've seen and heard Trump do (and try to do) to violate his oath and to cause others to violate their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. Trump chose to disqualify himself. The Fourteenth Amendment (Section 3) made that point emphatically.
I think whether it's a good signal or a bad one depends on the answer to this question: Would these newspapers have made the same decision on endorsements if a relatively sane Republican like Romney were running instead of Trump? Honestly, I don't think they would.
On the one hand, your contrarian point that newspapers undermined their credibility as objective reporters of fact with their proudly oppositional stance to Trump early on seems sadly correct. And more recently the New York Times, most notably, has made things worth by attempting to overcorrect (I guess?) and "sane-washing" Trump.
However, I really wonder whether Bezo's decision not to endorse, together with his hiring of the former Murdoch publication editor, is merely a belated attempt to provide objective journalism and attract a broader readership. In particular, I wonder if Bezos, Musk, etc. haven't reflected on how business is done in Russian and China decided they'd like to move up from mere crony capitalist to full oligarch?
My more anthropological hypothesis is that, once a country or region reaches a certain population density and socio-economic complexity, then human equality, liberty, and democracy aren't really feasible anymore. Asian-style hierarchy and government control become inevitable. Maybe the US has reached that point? Or perhaps people like Bezos, Thiel, and Musk have come to look at economic security more the way Xi is reported to look at China's security -- as something too sensitive to be left to the people.
RIGHT ON- thank you for speaking with such clarity. All the bed wetting by their staff shows both how much they believed in their self importance and how little their obvious biases reflected on their credibility. All such an endorsement would have accomplished is to further weaken their ability to continue to engage with the multitude of occasional readers such as myself by further calling into question their objectivity. If I want soul I will read my Bible or listen to Soul and Gospel music.
I generally agree. I think the increasingly siloed media ecosystems that people sort themselves into is a significant danger to the cohesiveness of our society and public civil life. Social media algorithms feeding people what they want is a big part of the problem, but so is ideological sorting and and advocate mindset from previously neutral (or at least seeming) media. It's getting worse as people have less and less shared reality anchored in a shared source of news and information.
Hopefully we can find our way back to some sense of shared news and public spaces, and newspapers, magazines, etc making a more public stance against partisanship might be part of the solution.
If people (and therefore state electors) vote for Trump but he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office, what do you think that will mean for who actually will be president?
In practice, I think that will mean that Trump occupies the Oval Office and acts as president, because I don't think there's anyone who will stop him from doing so. It will basically mean a constitutional crisis in slow motion.
For this particular election, those papers could easily (and maybe they should) blame their lawyers (or lawyers generally). Many very smart, very well informed lawyers, law professors and judges concluded that Trump had disqualified himself from holding federal office again unless (as Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment says) "Congress" does "by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Congress has not even attempted any such vote, so Trump cannot "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State."
All that being true, it still would have been better for these newspapers to announce their non-endorsement policies months ago. The suggestion of cowering to specific pressure from Trump does not help their journalistic credibility.
What journalistic credibility ? Neither of these two organizations had any due to the frequent editorializing by their “news” reporters.
I think that Josh makes the good point that there's very little reason to believe the journalists at the Post will go easy on Trump if he is elected, and every reason to fear that they'll provide the kind of "moral clarity" that cost them so much credibility last time.
The fact that the major non-conservative newspapers and media outlets are tediously, preachily anti-Trump may not help Democrats as much as Democrats would like, but it is evident for all to see. The popularity on the center-left of the insane notion that the Post or the NYT is pro-Trump (here's the reliable Borowitz: https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/new-york-times-admits-sean-hannity) gives cause for concern.
I think that paired with a decision to downplay actually newsworthy items that could make Trump look bad, it's a poor choice. But I'm not sure how much that's actually happening - lots of left-liberal pundits insist it's a huge problem at the major papers, but every time I independently look at these publications I can find plenty of Trump-hostile coverage. I think some (though not all) of these critics just want their opinions reflected back to them.
Meanwhile, why isn't there more interest in influencing publications that reachable undecided voters actually read (or, more likely, hear or watch)?
Like Rogan?
I don't know whether that would have worked, but that's one example for sure. I also haven't heard much about local news and entertainment markets that actually have convincing draw. What's Sinclair Broadcast Group up to these days?
Good point.
Your headline states a bold position that I'm not certain is a good one. But I am certain that I disagree with the (emphatic) contention that an endorsement "does signal to readers that the newspaper has a bias, making it harder to get some readers to trust the paper’s news reporting."
Making a decision based on facts and an assessment of risks does not necessarily amount to holding, much less signaling, a bias. I was a soldier and I am a lawyer. Some of my friends sacrificed their lives to fulfill their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. Many of us sacrificed our health. All of us sacrificed our happiness and big parts of our lives. Many people take their oaths seriously despite great cost or discomfort. So I've endorsed Harris and I oppose Trump because of what I've seen and heard Trump do (and try to do) to violate his oath and to cause others to violate their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. Trump chose to disqualify himself. The Fourteenth Amendment (Section 3) made that point emphatically.
I think whether it's a good signal or a bad one depends on the answer to this question: Would these newspapers have made the same decision on endorsements if a relatively sane Republican like Romney were running instead of Trump? Honestly, I don't think they would.
There's a secong thing going on here, which is "billionaire owner tells his editorial staff what positions they are allowed to take."
Should newspapers do away with editorials and opinion pages altogether?
On the one hand, your contrarian point that newspapers undermined their credibility as objective reporters of fact with their proudly oppositional stance to Trump early on seems sadly correct. And more recently the New York Times, most notably, has made things worth by attempting to overcorrect (I guess?) and "sane-washing" Trump.
However, I really wonder whether Bezo's decision not to endorse, together with his hiring of the former Murdoch publication editor, is merely a belated attempt to provide objective journalism and attract a broader readership. In particular, I wonder if Bezos, Musk, etc. haven't reflected on how business is done in Russian and China decided they'd like to move up from mere crony capitalist to full oligarch?
My more anthropological hypothesis is that, once a country or region reaches a certain population density and socio-economic complexity, then human equality, liberty, and democracy aren't really feasible anymore. Asian-style hierarchy and government control become inevitable. Maybe the US has reached that point? Or perhaps people like Bezos, Thiel, and Musk have come to look at economic security more the way Xi is reported to look at China's security -- as something too sensitive to be left to the people.
RIGHT ON- thank you for speaking with such clarity. All the bed wetting by their staff shows both how much they believed in their self importance and how little their obvious biases reflected on their credibility. All such an endorsement would have accomplished is to further weaken their ability to continue to engage with the multitude of occasional readers such as myself by further calling into question their objectivity. If I want soul I will read my Bible or listen to Soul and Gospel music.
Newspapers should just breakup news and opinion into two separate entities with separate websites.
This is not the year to be making this change. Trump poses a unique threat to our nation. Newspapers should be clear on this point.
I generally agree. I think the increasingly siloed media ecosystems that people sort themselves into is a significant danger to the cohesiveness of our society and public civil life. Social media algorithms feeding people what they want is a big part of the problem, but so is ideological sorting and and advocate mindset from previously neutral (or at least seeming) media. It's getting worse as people have less and less shared reality anchored in a shared source of news and information.
Hopefully we can find our way back to some sense of shared news and public spaces, and newspapers, magazines, etc making a more public stance against partisanship might be part of the solution.
If people (and therefore state electors) vote for Trump but he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office, what do you think that will mean for who actually will be president?
In practice, I think that will mean that Trump occupies the Oval Office and acts as president, because I don't think there's anyone who will stop him from doing so. It will basically mean a constitutional crisis in slow motion.
For this particular election, those papers could easily (and maybe they should) blame their lawyers (or lawyers generally). Many very smart, very well informed lawyers, law professors and judges concluded that Trump had disqualified himself from holding federal office again unless (as Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment says) "Congress" does "by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Congress has not even attempted any such vote, so Trump cannot "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State."