Pumpkins and Journalistic Integrity
Oct. 29th, 2024 05:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWriting 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.]
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.]
no subject
Date: 2024-11-04 10:24 pm (UTC)