Article start mentions WaPo not endorsing Harris, as if they're supposed to. I was glad hearing it, but turns out it's only because they have a new master due to Bezos-Trump ties.
Wonder about LA Times too, they used to also endorse Dems.
> Article start mentions WaPo not endorsing Harris, as if they're supposed to. I was glad hearing it, but turns out it's only because they have a new master due to Bezos-Trump ties.
Right: it's not just that they didn't endorse Harris. [1] It's that they had a 36-year tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate, had planned to endorse Harris, and then were overridden by their owner in a way that became really public. I expect the editorial positions (or lack thereof) to be chosen by senior journalists, not billionaires.
My subscription may or may not be among the 300,000 cancellations mentioned in the story. I turned off autorenew nearly a year ago; my subscription expires in a few days.
[1] Though I did feel that endorsement would be appropriate. I voted for her, and everything that's happened since has only confirmed to me that she would have been a far better choice than Trump.
To me an unbiased newspaper is one that confines their opinions to the op/ed section, striving for neutrality/objectivity elsewhere. Are you saying this section shouldn't exist at all? Or that it should be limited to...what, something other than politics?
Editorials are ok if they showcase a variety of viewpoints, even if it's not balanced. If the board collectively decides on a single candidate, I think most people get the impression that this reflects the newspaper as a whole.
Especially endorsing the same party for nearly 50 years to the point where it's expected as a sign of allegience, and non-allegience if they stop. It meant a lot.
Wonder about LA Times too, they used to also endorse Dems.