The unbelievable happened today: the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama.
The endorsement was a major surprise for all observers of politics, pundits, and the public at large. Most had expected the NYT to remain neutral, or to even endorse John McCain due to the paper’s history of objectivity (this year) and its willingness to criticize Democrats as often and as aggressively as Republicans.
Well, not exactly of course.
The NYT has truly made a caricature of itself in the last few months. It was always a liberal paper, but these days it is a partisan paper as well. Where the paper’s journalists were once interested in the ‘truth,’ they are now interested in the ’somewhat truth as long as it hurts Republicans.’
If the Times had any sense of honor, it would have refrained from endorsing a candidate this year, and it would have done an internal research to see what went wrong, and what will have to change if it wants to become the high quality newspaper it once was.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Michael;
Do I sense a tone of sarcasm in your post?
I love this quote:
“Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing.”
In the context of the previous paragraphs completely praising Sen. Obama and completely disparaging Sen. McCain it should have read:
“Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, THOUGH WE NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION TO ENDORSE ANY REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN BECAUSE BY DEFAULT THEY ARE NOT FIT FOR THIS NATIONAL OFFICE, has spent…”
The “last coins” bit has the strange tone of a disgruntled middle-aged executive who’s grown tired of his once beautiful wife and who’s now found a new twenty-something sweetheart.
LOL, exactly, c3.