LA Times refuses to endorse Kamala

It's like the breathless reporting on who broke a story first. In the Internet era, no one gives a flip if they ever did.

 

Can you actually document that Kamala never worked at Mickey D's or do you just prefer to reflexively post the party line of the Cult of the Donald? Just asking.

As a point of information speaking personally I had a number of part-time/summer jobs when I was in high school and college and there is no way that I can document any of them and that probably applies to virtually anyone who worked in jobs of that nature 40 years ago like Kamala or in my case over 50 years ago.

 

Yeah, I doubt that many people, or anyone, base their presidential vote on a newspaper endorsement. Maybe some of the minor candidates or amendments. And probably far less now than when the daily newspaper was a more vital part of people's lives.
But, if newspapers are going to have editorial boards and offer opinions on anything, a presidential election is probably as valid as any.

 

I only post here for your dislikes.

 

That was easy.

 

@TheGator .... maybe you could add LATimes to the thread title?

Edit: I meant the WaPo

 

WaPo making no endorsement.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washington-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris

 

Perhaps this is legacy media's way of feigning neutrality in politics because they are losing business, but it never bothered them before in previous elections. So, why start now?

 

@TheGator, maybe you could change the title to something less skeevy, like: "LA Times owner endorses neither candidate" or "LA Times owner overrules his editorial board".

Thanks in advance,

Me

 

Things just got uncomfortable for Jenn Rubin:

 

Republicans finally learning that billionaires who now own most legacy media have conservative politics and/or like tax cuts

 

As I said earlier, newspaper endorsements have actually shifted more toward Democrats since Trump arrived. Or papers that have traditionally endorsed Republicans have decided not to endorse at all. As the always-blue papers in this thread have done this year.

 

To be clear, it's not the papers that are declining to endorse, it's solely the owners.

 

Freedom of speech stifled by pAtriOt billionaires, right?

 

nah

 

Bezos made decision to kill Harris endorsement, reports Washington Post

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, personally made the decision to kill an endorsement of Vice President Harris for president that the newspaper’s editorial board had drafted, the outlet reported Friday.

Citing two sources it said had been briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, the Post reported its editorial board had drafted an endorsement of Harris that was to be published before the election.

“The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources,” the newspaper reported.

 

'People are furious': Bezos faces a Washington Post revolt after he reportedly blocked the paper from endorsing Harris

Washington Post editorial staff are in revolt after the paper reported that it wouldn't endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in 40 years and that its owner Jeff Bezos, Amazon's founder, made the decision.

A member of the opinion department, speaking anonymously to protect their job, said the editorial board was in the dark on the decision until Friday.

"People are furious. It's frightful when a billionaire does not have the nerve to stand up to Donald Trump," this person said.

"I've seen a lot of angst; people are upset," another Washington Post insider said.

Publisher and CEO Will Lewis announced the decision in a Friday column, saying he wanted readers to make up their own minds, helped by the paper's "non-partisan news" and "reported views from our opinion team." He said the paper has refrained from endorsing candidates in the past.

 

For Bezos, it's a quid pro quo:

 

Part of me wonders if Bezos did this to avoid having to pay all the severance packages for all the staff that are still around after their failed coup this summer on his new Editor in Chief of the Post.

 

This has a good chance of being correct