Pumpkins and Journalistic Integrity

[shadowkat]

Writing this up now - since I've chosen not to write online or on the computer after 8pm. Of course I do have to make dinner at some point, so we'll see. I've tuna steak in the fridge, also butternut squash noodles - assuming they are still good, if so, I may just do the butternut squash, and some veggies with cheese, walnuts and pesto.

Speaking of squash, here's a photo of the pumpkins across the street from my subway stop in Brooklyn, which I referred to in a previous post:





***

This morning on NY1 they announced that the Washington Post lost 200,000 subscribers since they chose to not endorse any candidate. (Or didn't endorse Kamala Harris and didn't condemn the Felonious Conman running against her.)

Then they announced Bestos response - which I've been debating off and on in my head all day long.

Here's the gist - he feels that endorsing either candidate or providing any endorsement is presenting bias. And shouldn't be done. He states why below:

"Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy."

I've been debating this in my head all day long.

In a normal election between two viable candidates, where one is not a monster, convicted of fraud, and indicted on 13 counts of treason, and should not be permitted to run for any elected office especially president - I would agree? But this is not a normal election. This is a patently absurd election, where we have someone running for elected office who should be in a prison cell, and awaiting sentencing. Not permitted to vote or hold any elected office.

Also, one of the candidates is a fascist. It's a choice between a female candidate for president, who has the experience, and well, Darth Vader.

On the other hand - if a news organization endorses political candidates does it show bias? Is that their role? Or is their role to objectively report the news? I'm admittedly only watching NY1 and PBS news because I want to avoid any and all bias, and just get as objective a take on the news as I can possibly obtain.

And shouldn't a line be drawn in the sand now - that news organizations no longer endorse political candidates, and provide instead a reasonable and objective rendering of the facts? But have they ever done this? News organizations are after all made up of human beings? And humans aren't objective about anything - they always have an agenda, and it is kind of disingenuous to state otherwise, right?

But, shouldn't we try to be objective? Is that really a justified excuse? And right now, fewer people trust the media - because it's mainly opinions and editorializing, and journalists are not striving towards that level of objectivity.

Then again, is it objective to deny that a fascist wannabee dictator is running for office? To treat this individual the same as you would any other candidate - is that not dangerous? Does not "normalize" the candidate? And if that candidate should win - does not standing up against them or revealing all the reasons why they should not be permitted to win, not make one culpable in allowing a fascist dictator to get elected?

I'm thinking back over our history. And wondering, if news organizations stood up against Hitler, would we have had the Holocaust - would things have gone as far as they did? Maybe, maybe not. People do have a tendency to stubbornly ignore that which they don't want to know or see or hear. And if they don't want to listen, they won't listen.

I don't know. I can argue it either way.

What do you think?

[I'm admittedly biased at the moment, because I'm pissed off at Amazon for not delivering my charger and making me anxious about utilizing their lockers. And if it were up to me, the Felonious Conman running against Harris, would be sitting in a prison cell at Rikers at the moment, not running for any elected office ever.]

Comments

[jesuswasbatman]

Everyone I read is assuming that Bezos deciding not to endorse a candidate is purely because of fear that if he endorses Harris and Trump is elected, Trump will go after Amazon.

And others have commented that this guy Meyer who Bezos claims was apolitical was actually notorious for ideological interference in his paper's content.

[shadowkat]

Didn't know that about Meyer. Although - that does go to my point on how it's impossible for a newspaper not to show bias at some point. I honestly don't think there's any owner of a newspaper who hasn't, Bezos is being naive about that - and I don't believe he is naive.

Regardless of Bezos motivation (not sure we can know what it is - outside of speculation) - is his point a valid one? I'm not sure. Does it show a lack of bias not endorsing a candidate during an election like this one? I mean if it were between Clinton and HW Bush, yes, I'd say don't endorse, makes sense. But this election?

[cactuswatcher]

Newspaper showing bias? That couldn't ever happen, right? {/sarcasm}

It's just cowardice. All the more reason to increase taxes on billionaires who are more worried about their wallets than the future of the country.

My Congressman has plenty of recordings of himself saying in public, that he supports the middle class and women's health rights, but when it comes time to vote in Congress, he always follows the Trump stooges. I doubt his opponent will win, but I wish she would. Despite millions of dollars worth of attack ads, I think our Democratic Senate candidate, Ruben Gallego will beat the Witch of the West, Kari Lake.

[shadowkat]

It's just cowardice.

I don't know - maybe. He goes on to opine at some length about being a billionaire and a businessman and how this isn't at all about that. (Which doesn't help his argument in my opinion.)

I agree with the view that newspapers shouldn't show bias in theory, but I don't see it happening in actuality. Also, the billionaires buying the news media - is exactly why we don't trust the news media.
(Which he also goes into at some length. I admittedly skimmed it - so not sure how good his argument is?)

All the more reason to increase taxes on billionaires who are more worried about their wallets than the future of the country.

I agree. These folks have too much and its toxic to them and everyone around them, including the world at large. Sometimes I wish for a media/tech crash - just to take them all down, but it would probably take us down too.

If we could just tax 65% of their salary, and only allow them 5% in tax shelters....

It will never happen, well, not until we can change campaign finance laws, which will also never happen - due to the inability of our legislators to think past themselves.

[slaymesoftly]

As you noted, it's not simple. I think it was a bit disingenuous of him (Besos) to do it just now, though. Even if he was trying to avoid seeming biased, that isn't how it seems when you kill a Harris endorsement this close to the election. Endorsements that include all the reasons why the editors have chosen that candidate, as long as they contain nothing but facts (as opposed to opinions about non-factual issues) can be helpful. Or, as many local papers do for local elections, just a description of each candidate, their positions on whatever the issues are, and a report on how they've voted or whatever in the past.
The fact that the post has a history of not endorsing candidates is a good argument- but the timing sucks, and this is not a normal election by any means.

[shadowkat]

I agree with this. His timing is off. The time to have stated that would have been two years ago. Or shortly after purchasing the paper.

Timing is critical here. And they could have done what the NY Times and others did and what the Post did in 2020 and 2016.

In theory, yes, not endorsing a candidate could show no bias, but in reality - it kind of does.

Also thank you for the response.

[trepkos]

I think if you just presented the facts about the two candidates, it should be clear who is suitable for office and who isn't. But facts don't seem to matter to many people.

[shadowkat]

Unfortunately we live in the cult of the celebratory (sp?) and a lot of folks are un-self-aware bigots and into authoritarianism. I honestly think they need to spend some time in a Chinese prison and they may realize the hazards of authoritarianism.

[trepkos]

Celebrities? Or, as a great comedian from the 60s described as "an array of glittering nobodies"!