• Trail@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    28 minutes ago

    Can some explain this to a non American? Why care about who a newspaper endorses? Why shouldn’t a newspaper even be allowed to endorse anyone - should they at least pretend to be independent journalists? The whole thing is truly baffling to me, and I don’t remember any such thing from past years.

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      A quick civics explainer for you:

      Journalism is one of the checks and balances on a democratic system - IE the ‘Fourth Estate’. For a healthy system, we NEED them to hold the rich and powerful to account.

      Yet somehow the rich and powerful have managed to convince a lot of people that journalistic independence means treating both sides the same. IT IS NOT. True independence is having the freedom to speak honestly about the most important issues of the day.

      That means not only is it important but imperative to make an endorsement and sound the alarms when a corrupt unhinged disconnected traitor of a billionaire has a real chance of taking command again and running democracy into the ground.

    • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      Media is supposed to be objective, endorsements are a long standing tradition here in the US, ostensibly and hopefully based on a non-partisan analysis of the candidates’ policy positions, record and overall character.

      Having the choice between an aspiring fascist dictator and convicted felon versus the sitting Vice-President and the decision being “neither” is indeed shocking and disappointing. The Post used to have massive credibility, especially on politics. This is an embarrassment.

  • Subtracty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’ll be honest, the first few words of the title had me thinking this was going to be about murder. I get it now, but I still think it’s a strange use of the word kill.

      • BeN9o@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        “Jeff Bezos shut down Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports” is that better? Now can you talk about the fucked up topic of the rich controlling media instead of the wording of a title ffs?

          • adam_y@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            It sort of is.

            He used his executive position to kill the story.

            Could they have written the headline, “Washington Post Endorsement Killed by Bezos”?

            Sure. But tradition dictates you lead with the person. People are interested in people.

            You are right. It is click-baity, but that’s because it is a newspaper headline and all newspaper headlines are “click bait”. They literally invented it. That’s why we have headlines. Often in bold and large type.

            I disagree that this is misleading though, especially if you expect folk to read the whole sentence.

          • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            You’re right and that’s not what’s written there. It is “killed [object/action]” i.e. the endorsement.

            To me this thread sounds more like ragebait than the original title.